Re: [Detnet] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you for the comments.  Please see response (as co-author) in-line
below.

On 6/24/2020 1:35 PM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-detnet-ip-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-ip/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document.  The concept seems pretty simple, I just have a few
> comments.
>
> 3.  DetNet IP Data Plane Overview
>
> In the introduction, I wondered whether it would be useful to mention that the
> Detnet forwarding is based on the classification of the 6-tuple that is
> programmed via the management plane with the next hop.  E.g. introducing the
> key forwarding concept defined in 5.2.

sure, will add:

  The DetNet controller plane, as defined in
         <xref target="RFC8655"/>, is responsible for providing each node
         with the information needed to identify an handle each DetNet flow.

> 4.2.  DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations
>
> Are the sub networks shown in Figure 4 all detnet aware supporting the service
> function?  If so, it may be helpful to explicitly clarify this.
>
> 4.3.3.  Path Selection
>
> Like the other reviewers, I found the terminology around using 5-tuple/6-tuples
> slightly confusing in places.  In particular, the text in 4.3.3 regarding 5
> tuples seemed confusing.  I basically interpreted the text as saying that
> 5-tuple forwarding already has these issues that must be avoided, and 6 tuple
> forwarding is no different.
yes, with the caveat that some language has been tweaked in addressing 
previous comments.
> Should it also mention that EMCP should be avoided as part of this path
> selection section?
It's mentioned latter in the document. Isn't that sufficient?
> I note that there is an informative reference to ietf-detnet-yang.  I wasn't
> sure whether an informative reference to YANG itself might also be worth adding.

I don't think so.  Is that okay?

>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
Changes covered here can be previewed at:

https://github.com/detnet-wg/data-plane-drafts/tree/working/lb/iesg-0625

https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/detnet-wg/data-plane-drafts/working/lb/iesg-0625/ip/draft-ietf-detnet-ip.xml


Thank you!



Lou


>
>