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

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

+1


On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:57 AM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> The issue being discussed is one that should be resolved to let the
> architecture document move ahead,
>
> I think the time of tweaking is over and that the chairs ´ should call
> consensus on "DetNet Forwarding sub-layer".
>
> We are a number of people that are not 100% happy with that, but most
> of us has said that we can live with that.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2018-12-10 14:32, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> --
>
>
> 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
>