Re: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:31:17PM +0000, Janos Farkas wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Thank you for your review!
> 
> Please see in line.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 8:39 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don't particularly mind the "vertical requirements" bit; "cannot be supported using defined DetNet solutions" does serve to limit scope.
> 
> I do think that clarity around "identify the appropriate WG" would be good, though.
> 
> [Janos Farkas] 
> I hope the updated text is clearer:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IfEJfMaLP79ar0Cc0d6hzL75HlA/ 

It is; thanks!

> A couple nits:
> 
>      Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS, and
>      related OAM, to support a data plane method of flow identification
>      and packet forwarding over Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane
>      technologies may also be used.
> 
> nit: "IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM, [...] Other IETF defined data plane technologies" is a somewhat awkward construction.
> 
> [Janos Farkas] 
> To be honest, I have not idea how to improve, what change to make.

I don't have a good idea, either.  The most promising approach is to try to
make a single list, "how to use IP, MPLS, other IETF-defined data plane
technologies, and/or related OAM, to support [...]" but I suspect that
loses some of the intended emphasis on which methods are preferred.  It's
okay to just leave this as-is, I think.

>      Controller Plane: This work will document how to use IETF control
>      plane solutions to support DetNet. This work includes identification
>      of any gaps in existing solutions and identifying the appropriate
>      Working Group for any needed extensions.
> 
> nit: maybe "for developing"?
> 
> This part has been updated:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IfEJfMaLP79ar0Cc0d6hzL75HlA/

Indeed, this comment is overtaken by events.

Thanks,

Ben