[Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-18

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Wed, 31 December 2025 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: detnet@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: detnet@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57C03A10003B; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 01:17:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WbOQs1acM5E8; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 01:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (mxct.zte.com.cn [183.62.165.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7938BA100033; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 01:17:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4dh48s0Qb5z4xQXB; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:17:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app08.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.206]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 5BV9FsVx064973; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:16:52 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:16:55 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd6954ea07d4e-d0cba
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20251231171655078WmtTczS_kF1pyOOjsInSV@zte.com.cn>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:16:55 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 5BV9FsVx064973
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.133 unknown Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:17:01 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6954EA0D.001/4dh48s0Qb5z4xQXB
Message-ID-Hash: EUL6AWQJM7C3TSYTZDJJQE66KXQF6QO6
X-Message-ID-Hash: EUL6AWQJM7C3TSYTZDJJQE66KXQF6QO6
X-MailFrom: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-detnet.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: detnet@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Detnet] Re: WG adoption poll: draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding-18
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/mXyd66AhFNpkCwljuQlKidt6cnY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:detnet-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:detnet-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:detnet-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Janos and all,

Happy new year~

I support the adoption of this document.
I read the version -18 and I think it is useful to support the deadline-based queuing to guarantee the delay bound.

I have some little suggestions for your considerations:
1, It would be better to add the defination of the abbreviation such as Earliest Deadline First (EDF).
2, It would be better to clealy clarify that the deadline-based deterministic forwarding in this document covers the solution option 1, 2,3 and 4 or just the option 3 and 4.  It will be little confused about the relationship between CEDF (including the option 3 and 4) and deadline-based queuing.

Thanks,
Quan


<Hi,

<This email begins a 4-week adoption poll for:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding/18/IPR has been disclosed <for this document:https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-<forwarding(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IgYqL1-Rjug6d39UnDXvnUwUECY/)

<Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the
<list by the end of the day (any time zone) January 2nd.

<As a reminder this document is part of the larger set of adoption calls
<of the documents discussed at IETF 124: