Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments

Thanks Jouni, conclusion is no changes for those two items.
Ethan.

________________________________
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 2:10 AM
To: Grossman, Ethan A.
Cc: jouni@gmail.com; Maik Seewald (maseewal); Balázs Varga A; János Farkas; Suresh Krishnan; detnet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Resolving the remaining Use Cases Draft Comments - Cellular Radio and Industrial M2M

Hi Ethan,

See my comments inline:

> On 16 Dec 2018, at 7.03, Grossman, Ethan A. <eagros@dolby.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni, Maik, Balazs, Janos (as DetNet Use Cases draft section authors),
>
> Please help me out here – I have three remaining IESG review comments that are domain specific and I couldn’t deduce answers for, as follows. Please send me some text.
>
> Thanks,
> Ethan (as DetNet Use Cases draft editor).
>
> Jouni, Maik:
> * Section 6.1.5
>
> 3GPP networks have some form of admission control to get access to these time sensitive streams. I think that it is important to mention that here

I think 3GPP bearer level admission control is not that trivial. Transport connections for fronthauls are established and managed separately from what happens at the bearer level i.e., they are more or less managed due their static nature.

For the mid/backhaul to my recollection(!) the (standardized) admission control was based radio resources per se, not the transport network level. That means there is a possibility the admission control check could succeed at the 3GPP bearer level but then fail or resource availability assumptions fail at the transport network level. My data might be outdated what has happened past 6 months in 3GPP regarding this (ref e.g., slicing and up/cp separation but that is IMHO more for later sections under 6.x to discuss). I would not add any further text here.

>
> * Section 6.2.1.
>
> How does CPRI fit the narrative here for the fronthaul? Do you think it falls under the proprietary protocol and framing category?

Definitely. CPRI does not aim for inter-vendor interoperability in its own specifications. IMHO no need to mention CPRI here.

- Jouni

>
> Balazs, Janos:
> * Section 7.4
>
> What does burstless mean (especially in the context of low packet loss)?
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet