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

[Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am fine with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".

Note: in order to match it somewhat better (i.e., considering the QoS aspects) 
we can consider "DetNet Forwarding Adaptation sub-layer".

Cheers
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: qiangli (D) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:56 AM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]>
Cc: detnet WG <[e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>; Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)

Hi All,

Personally, I prefer for forwarding sub-layer for the reason -- "packet forwarding" describes how nodes forward packets after receiving the packets, including necessary de-/en-capsuslation, table lookup, of course queueing related operations and etc.

Best regards,

Cristina QIANG

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 1:38 PM
To: S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]>
Cc: detnet WG <[e-mail]>; Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; János Farkas <[e-mail]>; Grossman, Ethan A. <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Transport sub-layer name change (Was Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08)

Hello 

I’m fine with both with a preference for TE. It seems to me that we are extending classical forwarding in the TE and QoS spaces, so TE is more specific this better suited.

Now, my hope is that we never spell it out. We have to find an acronym that is pronounceable and that acronym will leave no room to confusion if we never expand it.

DTSL (transport) is too close from DTLS
DFSL is  ok but tiresome
DTESL is a bit long, we may ignore the S either in spelling and or writing; note that old French has many S that went away e.g., forest is pronounced foray and modern spelling is forêt DTEL could be pronounced dee-tell quite easy.

Think about how many times you will have to pronounce it and choose wisely! I vote “dee-tell” whether we have the S in the acronym or not...

Regards,

Pascal

> Le 8 déc. 2018 à 08:08, S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I feel Detnet Forwarding sub-layer is very close to capturing the 
> functionality, but Forwarding still overloaded as observed by Lou.
> 
> Given the wide range of mechanisms and lower layer services that this 
> layer works with, I wonder if it makes sense to use a generic term 
> "convergence" in the name. It is not uncommon to come across this term 
> as part of a name in the context of a typical foo-layer.5. Just a 
> thought. This said, I am still fine with Detnet Forwarding sub-layer.
> 
> Regards
> Anand
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 11:07:55AM +0800, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Lou, et.al,.
>> 
>>> On 2018-12-08 00:13, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Focusing on the proposal:
>>> 
>>>> In order to have another alternative on the table I propose 
>>>> renaming "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
>>> This is a bit of a new usage for 'Forwarding' but not totally -- 
>>> thinking about FIBs.  My main reservation is that forwarding is 
>>> usually considered separately from queuing, while this sub-layer 
>>> embodies both. I do accept that TE usually considers both 
>>> forwarding/steering and queuing, and that some assume that 
>>> sophisticated queuing is required for TE -- which is actually 
>>> service dependent.
>>> 
>>> Even with this caveat and my personal preference for the 'TE'
>>> option, I (as contributor) can live with "DetNet Forwarding 
>>> sub-layer".
>> 
>> Understanding that we want to pick good names, and that sometimes 
>> this turns out to be "impossible".
>> 
>> But after all a name is just a name.
>> 
>> I can live with "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".
>> 
>> /Loa
>> 
>>> 
>>> Lou
>>> 
>>>> On 12/7/2018 10:45 AM, János Farkas wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I have a similar concern with the change. It of course depends on 
>>>> the definition of Traffic Engineering, but the term "DetNet TE sub-layer"
>>>> may imply to the reader that Traffic Engineering is a must even for 
>>>> DetNet transit nodes. As far as I recall, the intention is to make 
>>>> possible that DetNet transit nodes can be kept simple. Depending on 
>>>> the actual DetNet service provided, DetNet transit nodes can be 
>>>> actually simple.
>>>> 
>>>> The idea behind the introduction of the two DetNet sub-layers was 
>>>> to make it easier to tackle the problem. The lower layer provides 
>>>> simpler packet forwarding related functions, the higher DetNet 
>>>> Service sub-layer provides more complex DetNet service related functions.
>>>> 
>>>> In order to have another alternative on the table I propose 
>>>> renaming "DetNet Transport sub-layer" to "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer"
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Janos
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/20/2018 10:10 PM, 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]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet