Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I think we have encountered this before, at these times we either talked
about "Layer 2 Transport (L2 Transport)" or "Transport Network", fwiw
that would work here also.

But otoh I could live with "DetNet TE Sub-Layer", the small caveat is
that that implies we are talking about a Sub-Layer of DetNet, rather
than an independent transport network.

/Loa

On 2018-11-21 17:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Sorry Toerless I cannot buy " quite frankly, thats not the primary reader constituency of DetNet".
> 
> We already face huge confusion in the current discussion in the ML. We do discuss Transport on the ML if only to decide what needs to be done in-house vs. elsewhere (in Transport Area) for a complete solution. And then we'll have our docs reviewed by the IESG for every publication request.
> 
> We could keep the word transport if we hide it well in an acronym that no one ever expands in the discussions (like MPLS). With David's suggestion that would be DTN, DetNet Transport Network. Sadly DTN is already taken at the IETF. Maybe DTNS with Service included : )
> 
> Otherwise using the word "transport" for an alternate meaning than layer-4 is really harmful to the discussions and publications.
> Note that we decided to work only on centralized solutions, with a controller that allocates resources along a "path". So the "path" we build is effectively TE. This is why I supported Lou's suggestion.
> 
> All the best;
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 22:34
>> To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>; Grossman, Ethan A.
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Pascal
>> Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; detnet WG <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last
>> call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
>>
>> IMHO, "Traffic Engineering" will be worse than "Transport":
>>
>> - Makes more important people confused
>>
>>    IMHO, the mayor group of people (rightfully) confused by the term
>> "Transport"
>>    in the DetNet context are IETF apps and transport area people, and
>>    quite frankly, thats not the primary reader constituency of DetNet
>>    documents. Network operators / vendors / TSN members / TSN solutoin
>>    devenlopers, aka: the primary reader consitutency for DetNet documents will
>>    IMHO be less confused by "Transport" than by "Traffic Engineering".
>>
>> - Creates even more inconsistent confusion
>>
>>    IMHO, Differnt confused people will even more likely assume through
>>    name recognition a lot more different functions into "Traffic
>>    Engineering". (TE means RSVP-TE, oh no, TE means network planning,
>>    TE can not mean QoS, TE is jut admission control, no TE needs to be
>>    per-hop, yada yada yada).
>>
>> I am not arguing for keeping Transport, i am just more worried about "Traffic
>> Engineering" than "Transport". I think a uniue new term without name
>> recognition and resulting confusion would be best.
>>
>> Maybe form a new term from key words like the following, eg.:
>>
>>   DetNet Flow SubNetwork Encapsulation and Adaption Layer (DF-SEAL)
>>
>> Cheers
>>      Toerless
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 04:10:58PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2018 3:11 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>>> This terminology is certainly appropriate for TEAS. For DetNet, this
>>>> seems to make the assertion that the DetNet underlay is always
>>>> traffic-engineered, even if IPv4 or IPv6 (which is certainly
>>>> possible using TE extensions for the IGPs).
>>>
>>> This is certainly a fair point and one that does lead me to have a
>>> slight reservation about the change, that said, it seems the benefit
>>> out ways the downsides.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as people are OK with this assertion, then I'm OK with it as
>>>> well. That should be made clear in the architecture spec where the
>>>> term "DetNet TE sub-layer" is introduced/defined.
>>>
>>> agreed.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:29 PM Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      I like it.
>>>>      Ethan.
>>>>
>>>>      -----Original Message-----
>>>>      From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>      Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:27 AM
>>>>      To: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>>>      Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>      Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>      [e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>      Subject: RE: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
>>>>      Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
>>>>
>>>>      I support this change;
>>>>
>>>>      Pascal
>>>>
>>>>      > -----Original Message-----
>>>>      > From: Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>      > Sent: mardi 20 novembre 2018 19:19
>>>>      > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Scharf, Michael
>>>>      > <[e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>      > Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>>      [e-mail]
>>>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>      > Subject: Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: [Detnet]
>>>>      Tsvart last
>>>>      > call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)
>>>>      >
>>>>      > ALL,
>>>>      >
>>>>      > There is a desire to replace the word "Transport" from the DetNet
>>>>      > Transport sub-layer to avoid confusion with L$ Transport protocols.
>>>>      >
>>>>      > In the TEAS WG we had a similar discussion and we replaced
>>>>      "Transport"
>>>>      > with "Traffic Engineered (TE) ".
>>>>      >
>>>>      > While a bit more verbose, what do people think about this change?
>>>>      >
>>>>      > To be clear, the suggestion is:
>>>>      >
>>>>      > OLD
>>>>      >
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >       | DetNet Transport sub-layer | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
>>>>      MPLS SR
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >
>>>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
>>>>      >
>>>>      > NEW
>>>>      >
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >       |  DetNet Service sub-layer  | PW, UDP, GRE
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >       |      DetNet TE sub-layer   | IPv6, IPv4, MPLS TE LSPs,
>>>>      MPLS SR
>>>>      >       +----------------------------+
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >                     .
>>>>      >
>>>>      >                   Figure 4: DetNet adaptation to data plane
>>>>      >
>>>>      > Lou
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> detnet mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]