IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)" <pwetterw@cisco.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <pwetterw@cisco.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 81EF6129602; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 2istxZ-WZb9R; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4131129405; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3158; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476879463; x=1478089063; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=2a/WOaSI3pS49Aubpqks60m4kMIGDC1GluQuz1981qw=; b=Kw3B+cUXSWNkjwidDTNYX6JWKYWJpdH6MKnu/bFza8S3jx9TWiXLQLV6 b9TwgyuTB+1VKgLpBg2yZyNUlB9CtybvJiQDowb4mIqxRg1fkiLJ5mxnG gQVe347Z53iQ3N/qnig799U+SJ2KLFm/XRgw2rbefby8QDeiY580NhyJY k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BwAQAqZAdY/4oNJK1cGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgzwBAQEBAR1XfAeNLZZ7lDqCCBwLhTBKHIF7OBQBAgEBAQEBAQFiJ4RhAQEBBAEBASAROAIdAQgRAQMBAQMCCBcEAwIEJQsUAQIFAQoEARKIUg62aY0DAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBB4U2gX2CWIQZEQEzgm0sgi8FmUNIAYYoiWEKgWSEaYkijH6DfwEeNlWDADqBOnKGHYEggQABAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,514,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="159263418"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Oct 2016 12:17:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9JCHgNM029003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:17:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:41 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-014.cisco.com ([64.101.220.154]) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com ([64.101.220.154]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:41 -0400
From: "Patrick Wetterwald (pwetterw)" <pwetterw@cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "matthew.bocci@nokia.com" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, "dlnex@ietf.org" <dlnex@ietf.org>, "linda.dunbar@huawei.com" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] FW: New Non-WG Mailing List: DLNEX -- Discussion of reliable and deterministic latency attributes
Thread-Index: AQHSKgLKlz3O0ZwIFEGMCOdFJZiYkg==
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:17:41 +0000
Message-ID: <E4FAC118-EC7C-4BD8-8A3C-8A7824F6BDD9@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.228.216.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <92C5F67ECED7F04190ECBACA18D90A00@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dlnex/Vsu0H26KVWPX07hJW2aKyNAZmXY>
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 12:17:45 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email