IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 17 February 2021 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131503A1498; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ISlfmFEwM4Za; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B92AE3A1497; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id f3so13664146oiw.13; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:37:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ArlnXT0KaIhx+6U98w0Vj+VqQZWSSmQFalJL0BNViAg=; b=Dw3eeL2nr3vyTBuMaT965kfjpwoz5MNHQTOc0TleKZk/735DsQ+y3ZIJBBekEdO+j6 JV/5Ogjv5dqECpdgHMHNrPRfwUDzY7FMrNRCMQK7wBonUWB3QC6W5N7WHOORyLnmp7rL 54+GeOW3VNyMmIZs8OP5kQKZ7v10owAxyDdSCnJ1EqBoXhdGQ+OWMIM2lojy2yqjc439 0qTkBshMrYS/wExlnj4wOwHmxJI6jGYYaXFfRPnndPFRQN+YB+gAJ9xE30lufiKF24g5 KMB7MaDzoQ6CEnsSVO2CWlQD4Vd8PUqhgkDf5O3zn1FI6blS8Rs4WUhmcYpLML9V0Eh3 aIMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ArlnXT0KaIhx+6U98w0Vj+VqQZWSSmQFalJL0BNViAg=; b=JaP/QFKZPUHfztBNWE7AtDr30IIKD/v/9NVHmkEHIGOsL6BI8qfoJqP3gKv5vb4zUO ZdXZwRlTuXWOdNVxVmrIWtsmI6PfI37gJj/6SN9yiiE0d0tT6UU1YcQIpd0s5u0buhR/ M/BasHm3OHgXiivTS2O/ATGMwy7H+Y4vLWLP7NRF8Y814v1S+YG1BROl2BnIzwST8nlM rnnpQrLTu6xSGABV2FsDxyMtdt5huEBUNnKX2vGLd90rDhn/hZq/tWdmFn/9mqLQPVj9 aAld+TIdcV9oxErfnldOSG7/VzOymAunJ/FSrz0dxIT1N+ljJb5wexd/+639hJdetz7f GoVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53350E+iXhOjntI1gedHeyZnLN2bMUM8F0jfKTGfJEyQU8LZu8CI DefHaYrYg2IK+EDf6A41yjtAs6r2uYw6iWY2WFY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQG8GttNwpleo/c6rFrsOqHIyFIMBigopLMBGJrZmd8V2v4TJZnFCFb4US4ufnyfglM1WY2etbb9k+N644myw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:bf0a:: with SMTP id p10mr4712422oif.97.1613536626028; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:37:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161326356441.13622.14431976032112305269@ietfa.amsl.com> <AM0PR0702MB3603A26BC1E295F774F1174CAC879@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0702MB3603A26BC1E295F774F1174CAC879@AM0PR0702MB3603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:36:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMGpriUtHMiOLTYHpLC7OjSKnjzTWy-Dit+HBdwH8eUaKTKrqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls@ietf.org>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/liL_0PIAYF27Ii61mcRl1m7AvGU>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 04:37:09 -0000

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:48 AM Balázs Varga A
<balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
> Proposal regarding your comments is below.
>
> Thanks
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 1:46 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; lberger@labn.net
> Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: (with COMMENT)
>
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [[ comments ]]
>
> * I know that RFC 8964 doesn't have any text about MTU and fragmentation
>   considerations, but RFC 3985 does.
>
>   The layering diagram in section 4.2 made me thing it might be worth
>   either adding some text or pointing to some text elsewhere that
>   advises the DetNet network operator to make sure that all the DetNet
>   encapsulation overhead plus the MTU of the TSN not exceed the DetNet
>   network's MTU, otherwise fragmentation considerations arise.
>
>   Even a reference to RFC 3985 section 5.3 might be enough to remind the
>   reader of these additional considerations.
>
> <Bala'zs> Yes, a note is definitely worth to add (to the end of section 4.2).
> NEW TEXT
>   Note: In order to avoid fragmentation (see section 5.3 of [RFC3985]),
>   the network operator has to make sure that all the DetNet encapsulation
>   overhead plus the TSN App-flow do not exceed the DetNet network's MTU.
> END

Sounds good, thank you!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email