Re: [DLNEX] [Detnet] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: DLNEX -- Discussion of reliable and deterministic latency attributes

[Pat Thaler <[e-mail]>]

We have been having recent discussions about latency such as what type of
latency is important.

As far as the "feasibility exercise for achieving reliable and
deterministic latency through a network element or a segment" that overlaps
very much what DetNet and IEEE 802.1 TSN have been doing. I believe we have
already shown that it is feasible and are not on specifying how to do that.
I'm concerned about the overlap between what that paragraph describes and
our work.

There could be useful work on communication from the upper layer of the
flow characteristics, behavior and requirements. There probably is some gap
to fill that would help our work. I'm concerned that the list description
focuses only on exposing lower layer characteristics to the upper layer.
The network can't provide a bounded or deterministic latency to an
unbounded flow - to determine what latency can be provided, one has to know
something about the bandwidth utilization of the flow.

Regards,
Pat

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Alia,
>
>     Overlap looks likely.  I hope that when it does occur, you send
> folks over here to contribute -- additional input / WG participation
> would be great!  (For folks not familiar with DetNet, check out our
> charter at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/detnet/charter/)
>
> I expect we'll have some good data plane centric discussions at this
> meeting, for those who may be interested (there's even still time to
> submit related drafts!)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lou
>
> DetNet Co-chair
>
> On 10/19/2016 11:46 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > The discussion intended on dlnex, a non-WG mailing list, is, I think,
> > broader - spanning the range of communications between upper layer
> > applications and the network.  It is not clear yet what work might
> > develop.  Be sure that I will be watching for any specific overlap
> > with DetNet.
> >
> > I feel that it is useful to make it easy for groups to have a list to
> > brainstorm about their ideas before work is mature enough to consider
> > for standardization.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alia
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Can someone explain me why this mailing list is created outside of
> >     DetNet?
> >
> >     This sounds like a subset of Detnet no?
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Patrick
> >
> >
> >     On 19/10/2016, 07:56, "detnet on behalf of Pascal Thubert
> >     (pthubert)" <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >         From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of IETF
> Secretariat
> >         Sent: mardi 18 octobre 2016 22:36
> >         To: IETF Announcement List <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >         Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: DLNEX -- Discussion of
> >     reliable and deterministic latency attributes
> >
> >
> >         A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.
> >
> >         List address:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         Archive:
> >     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=dlnex
> >     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=dlnex>
> >         To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dlnex
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dlnex>
> >
> >         Purpose:
> >         DLNEX is to discuss various latency characteristics that can
> >     be exposed by network elements or segments and to explore if there
> >     are any latency related attributes that can be utilized by upper
> >     layer. For example, could there be latency exposure that upper
> >     layer can utilize to plan how to distribute their content to the
> >     right edges to achieve optimal user experience? Or something used
> >     by Interactive AR controller to optimize their services? Is there
> >     any value gained by upper layer expressing that they would rather
> >     have fixed latency than losing packets?
> >
> >         The discussion is to answer questions like: are there any
> >     effective interaction/coordination between upper layer and lower
> >     layer to achieve more efficient optimization for latency sensitive
> >     services?
> >
> >         This discussion group is also a place to showcase the state of
> >     the arts in latency optimized switching architecture and interface
> >     designs, as the feasibility exercise for achieving reliable and
> >     deterministic latency through a network element or a segment.
> >     Those latency exposures are the foundation for (future) latency
> >     optimized control plane.
> >
> >
> >         For additional information, please contact the list
> >     administrators.
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         detnet mailing list
> >         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     detnet mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > detnet mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>