[Detnet] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.txt

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Tue, 24 February 2026 08:40 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 EF98EBCE82B7 for <detnet@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:40:15 -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_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_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 CU3RClqa_kUT for <detnet@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:40:13 -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 6BFDBBCE81D7 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:40:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (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 4fKrkv3b8Mz4xQXB for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:40:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app06.zte.com.cn ([10.55.23.119]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 61O8e0o4099255 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:40:00 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:40:02 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd699d63e24d5-de0fa
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20260224164002647FbWP-SsCSXOAcOKguF5wh@zte.com.cn>
References: 177191691388.2129478.10441554855934351374@dt-datatracker-6ff7c68975-7k42g
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:40:02 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: detnet@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 61O8e0o4099255
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.132 unknown Tue, 24 Feb 2026 16:40:07 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 699D63E7.001/4fKrkv3b8Mz4xQXB
Message-ID-Hash: LB7R5OH32GLJCNJBGZVLISDDTHUGX5ME
X-Message-ID-Hash: LB7R5OH32GLJCNJBGZVLISDDTHUGX5ME
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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Detnet] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.txt
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/mah_LjsN_IZQvLJtGodi0peZDOY>
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>

Dear DetNet WG,

The authors updated a new version of draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp and it mainly proposes the DetNet-specific metadata which should be carried in enhanced data plane such as the queuing-based information.  The updates of this version are as follows:

1, revise the Deterministic Latency Metadata to align with the seven queuing solutions I-Ds.
2, discuss the options of encodings for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane such as reuse of the Existing DSCP/TC Field and encapsulation considerations in IPv6,SRv6 and MPLS networks. 
3, add Jinoo as a co-author and thanks for the suggestions.

Since the DetNet just adopted seven queuing solutions, this document proposes the common format for DetNet data fields and options such as Deterministic Latency Option to cover the seven categories. I think it may be a good time to discuss the queuing metadata and it may be benificial for other protocol extensions such as PCEP.

Comments and suggestions are very welcome!Thanks!


Best Regards,
Quan






Original



From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
  
To: 刘爱华10024999;Dong Yang <dyang@bjtu.edu.cn>;Jinoo Joung <jjoung@smu.ac.kr>;熊泉00091065;Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi@cisco.com>;
  
Date: 2026年02月24日 15:08
  
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.txt
  


A new version of Internet-Draft draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.txt hasbeen successfully submitted by Quan Xiong and posted to theIETF repository. Name:     draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edpRevision: 04Title:    Data Fields for DetNet Enhanced Data PlaneDate:     2026-02-24Group:    Individual SubmissionPages:    20URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.txtStatus:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp/HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04.htmlHTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edpDiff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-04 Abstract:    The DetNet-specific metadata should be carried in enhanced data plane   based on the enhancement requirements.  This document proposes the   common DetNet data fields and options including Deterministic Latency   Option and Aggregation Option.  It also considers the common DetNet   options being encapsulated into a variety of protocols such as MPLS,   IPv6 and SRv6 networks. The IETF Secretariat