Re: [Detnet] Alvaro Retana's Yes on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Pascal:

Hi!

The document is fine with me…this was just a non-blocking comment to say
that I would have preferred one document instead of two…but no change is
needed.

Thanks for following up.

Alvaro.

On December 19, 2018 at 11:39:07 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Hello Alvaro :



I was digging the datatracker and found the following comment from you:

“

Given the close relationship between this document and
draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases, I think that it would have been beneficial to
produce a single document.  As it stands neither one normatively references
the other.



draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-09 says it better:



   The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-problem-statement] introduces Deterministic

   Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] summarizes the need for it.

I’m sorry I cannot remember seeing this comment before, and I could not dig
it in my mail client, so I do not know what happened with it.



As it goes, the problem statement precedes the architecture document and
cannot really reference it normatively.

On the other hand the problem statement is a consequence of the use case
draft so it is heavily based on it.



Still there is a forward note that references it, so we do have a reference.

                 Forward note: The DetNet Architecture

   [I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture] is the document produced by the DetNet

   WG to describe that model.





But in general when we mention a DetNet architecture we present it as an
abstract architecture to be defined as opposed to work already done, so we
abstained to have a reference to the architecture draft.



More than that seems artificial and I’m tempted to leave things as is. If
you think it is important then I’m OK add a sentence or modify the one
quoted above in the next editions.



Please let us know if that’s OK?



Pascal