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

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dlnex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dlnex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3303129670; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJtZkjB3V0OE; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x230.google.com (mail-yb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7789C12950C; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 184so10429416yby.2; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wAYf6vN58J7m3W4vljX4segnfCuLCzztVxBeUJE8jYI=; b=VFou/PxRxU6efyC8+HpI8U7jD4zAFm21Nryj5BCupFf1jFPDlHjs5AsrM3dxrqdpov xWGLBsy3aExF86fFOScRdzr8u7FjlENbXNevquKukCf7GbtG1NfKrXEtAhMjEyjktMrY AYBZIunGmvlpJEZrHxD1XfqaSy0poNb3OKYeIA5iEwJrVCJw2Ltp//srH3rUSr+jzWxp l7aQCXC9vo4PTSTY6AfzlKaVld7pIwNcDqFoOBZ0H23aiKGabDP23g0IvzAP29bIRDDh DniTiGcV+8wEfH7gFpAXAstWbZ9v1tcScBvYCT+X1Hmx7sYiIOMCv9omP2sV1tRW1CHm vDxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wAYf6vN58J7m3W4vljX4segnfCuLCzztVxBeUJE8jYI=; b=EqVQJqyAaiRtfAuYjjpiTsNzb2AiLw2G9zJOEERpIcfId3IXQLLOJJjVjo/WoER7PJ +zUBZ+4Bd/DzslH7xGCLr1ZAtU9SNQsTsxcgDjzMb/jUfvNP7dyQQOg0eRJNZsF1gwJJ t8aaPp8n9aLqTyQUFP2WIFgw3LCP97bW5R5EUp67PPMgs/RNRFfIxZYgo+7DmRAHIrWk 9cDBXCrM++dwjQQ5KxzOKlGeBF07Qt6M0vqItpzE71niPtC+9PeEGZXa/yJ/JWvaFPNd dMIm8r5V9vmeQH+5/AU9Z6WV2rFRCm7qbx9MKVLGSHHn2q7pM73kSd4Y3HOHBLAH1K/g l2qA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmIwKc7jwAb6Fdl5PYMfpr3vt/AizrsRdzaeXixTJ7cxKsTqSDVJTcISlIHZJ4zMEkzb2oVPhLN/ZINbg==
X-Received: by 10.37.125.135 with SMTP id y129mr6490919ybc.179.1476891996506; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.56.133 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E4FAC118-EC7C-4BD8-8A3C-8A7824F6BDD9@cisco.com>
References: <E4FAC118-EC7C-4BD8-8A3C-8A7824F6BDD9@cisco.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:46:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rc-DNeNB8E7Y9m+=yraYTfpvWV1YJ8Q6TfvkWiGZdts1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)" <pwetterw@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e2d32d2ce8b053f39b606
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dlnex/LSm7BNd9saMbRM20pTE6wmuql94>
Cc: "matthew.bocci@nokia.com" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "dlnex@ietf.org" <dlnex@ietf.org>, "linda.dunbar@huawei.com" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [DLNEX] [Detnet] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: DLNEX -- Discussion of reliable and deterministic latency attributes
X-BeenThere: dlnex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Discussion of reliable and deterministic latency attributes <dlnex@ietf.org>
List-Id: Discussion of reliable and deterministic latency attributes <dlnex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dlnex>, <mailto:dlnex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dlnex/>
List-Post: <mailto:dlnex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dlnex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dlnex>, <mailto:dlnex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:46:40 -0000

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) <
pwetterw@cisco.com> 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)" <
> detnet-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>     From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of IETF Secretariat
>     Sent: mardi 18 octobre 2016 22:36
>     To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
>     Cc: matthew.bocci@nokia.com; dlnex@ietf.org; linda.dunbar@huawei.com
>     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:dlnex@ietf.org
>     Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=dlnex
>     To subscribe: 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
>     detnet@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>