[Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08

Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 06 February 2022 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D633A0D58; Sun, 6 Feb 2022 12:40:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <art@ietf.org>
Cc: detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.44.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <164418003542.22630.8014632907280172816@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 12:40:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/xe1Q6HUZjLqbVvIwJ-ZRWw60hEI>
Subject: [Detnet] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2022 20:40:39 -0000

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues

This is an artart Last Call review of draft-ietf-detndet-bounded-latency-08

This document is Mostly Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but
there are some issues to consider before publication.

It's not clear to me who this document is intended to inform. While reasonably
written, it feels more like part of a larger discussion without pointers to
that discussion, and I'm not seeing the utility of publishing it in the RFC
series as it is currently framed. I don't _object_ to it's publication, but
please consider if the purpose and audience could be made more clear.

I find the division of Normative/Informative references suspect. In particular,
please reconsider whether the IEEE references, particularly IEEE802.1Q-2018
should be normative.

The document uses AVB as an acronym for (I think) A vs B, but that
three-letter-acronym is already well used in this space (even in other detnet
documents) to mean Audio Video Bridge. Is this collision necessary?

At section 7, "application of this document" is unclear. Consider expanding
what you mean to say. I think you mean something like "an example use of the
models in this document to inform the admission of a detnet flow"?

I support Ralf Weber's comments.