IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-yang-17: IP/MPLS over TSN

Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@linutronix.de> Wed, 03 May 2023 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <florian.kauer@linutronix.de>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40760C1519BB for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 03:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.b="psfgrx1V"; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=linutronix.de header.b="qVj/dgOf"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oriRnLh2syq for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2023 03:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE0B7C1519AF for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2023 03:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <74c2061c-9656-20ab-dea0-fd06a27706b8@linutronix.de>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1683109550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EfvXGzPC9Ad3tmPctVwF7BdlqKorSwpPAbFBkD8mr4Q=; b=psfgrx1V+bVSPvc84349Cp8w2qIr1VCFQyC+q4SsAzAFzGn03VxzJTNhq/9uNc530mZyUr JJKmPFHUrMRHOjGBqjDiN9JfvWqw8UMU9pChti1+bLk8CiQD0NCFVSFRJt6qEF5PeeS+Z+ 1+aagRTFENmiqfdZaA6Ky4EfxZ0QAx2v7cKHt1F91aSVzJ8BYyYV/Wk3J2uXuDQ9x3iJjD s1bkraBzyhgMrgfRed79keFXeZxmcUjnH37hoCLTUAUTC+AxF3mtFdgkgYVYXI5l0zg4nM p7qjDZ2OYgtIdYS/f2Ji/vh5FXjVQMeXmnozWVzp8Y9PwR3mh9OqEdT9h0vkwA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1683109550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EfvXGzPC9Ad3tmPctVwF7BdlqKorSwpPAbFBkD8mr4Q=; b=qVj/dgOfGwFgggSohIT6Dh/XcgSZaXeFLqaA2ysWyZIFpMVLAfSkiAYLnIaB+BVQz2TiXk l6vgNo30a8d9c5Dg==
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 12:25:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: detnet@ietf.org
From: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/yCK91uMrmslG1gAKwr41BCIOSC0>
Subject: [Detnet] draft-ietf-detnet-yang-17: IP/MPLS over TSN
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 03 May 2023 10:25:57 -0000

Hi all,
it is currently unclear for me if draft-ietf-detnet-yang-17 covers IP/MPLS over TSN (RFC 9023 / RFC 9037) or not.
If found hints in older presentations like https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-detnet-sessb-detnet-configuration-yang-model-walkthrough-02.pdf
that this is not the case, but also related statements about later versions of the draft like in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/DpTC_K8_Ce5ztww-9Yi08RmqAS0/
However, I was not able to find definitive corresponding positive or negative statements regarding the current draft 17.
So, what is the current assumption about this?

My second question is regarding the use of type inet:ip-prefix in draft-ietf-detnet-yang-17.
When looking at the examples, it looks like leafs such as src-ip-prefix do not use the canonical format (i.e. all bits of the address set to zero that are not part of the prefix),
but actually refer to the concrete IP address of the source in this case. Is my understanding correct?

Greetings,
Florian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email