Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE14126DBF; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:19:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 cwIdRRsKcIY3; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0E7F123FFD; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43wL6T4vsTzPpkF; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:19:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1549549169; bh=KKRM5Icz776zJ/g2qd5T9Ua/+vb2dXfxr3l0LoqyrSU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GqLYyUrk1AiLhGWtgBSvtc2kCF38a2yw0hzTmJIFhf29BEtQ7+gaIsuNIlXoyk3Gb pRGKqp2m7SB+RHTkaawnfd8/yi8/wTh1Z8J6M324KCdzuNPnkWb1k5HDi2BPHc/5Lr 4S66tnBniNHMfXii70LrR/9/YlU2UHVwf3qVQECA=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43wL6S6jtczPpkP; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:19:28 -0800 (PST)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=a1nos_Farkas?= <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <0cf9f2ac-f813-8f30-9889-4c1e5fc95b7b@ericsson.com> <a773d59b-92e0-8acc-348c-b79b3b6048a6@ericsson.com> <ce26f203-2429-1eaf-4b5e-c81c2b76bed4@joelhalpern.com> <dadb5852-1e36-fcb5-0d33-7dec28cd6624@ericsson.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <8b0aa58a-0f64-6d34-f06c-5f3de34af026@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 09:19:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dadb5852-1e36-fcb5-0d33-7dec28cd6624@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/EvjNT1a2B7mCp8bfD7W4BLbHvJQ>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 14:19:32 -0000

Thank you Janos.  I have looked at the changes.  They address my 
concerns, and make a number of other useful and consistent changes that 
improve the document readability and clarity.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/6/19 5:17 PM, János Farkas wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> Thank you very much again for your review!
> 
> The draft had multiple updates since v08 you reviewed. The latest 
> revision is v 11: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/SP63CCzi4C2Biy9mk0Qxrehoa_0
> 
> The updates address review comments, and comments and discussions on the 
> DetNet WG list.
> 
> Please let us know if you have further comments.
> 
> Regards,
> Janos
> 
> 
> On 10/19/2018 9:17 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Thank you Janos.  Two clarifications under retained text, with the 
>> rest elided.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 10/19/18 3:10 PM, János Farkas wrote:
>> ...
>>> On 9/22/2018 2:59 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>      Section 3.1 states that worst case delay for priority queueing is
>>>>      unbounded.  That does not match my understanding.  I know that 
>>>> DelayBound
>>>>      DSCP behavior tightly (although, I think, not as tightly as 
>>>> Detnet) limits
>>>>      both the worst case delay and the delay variation.
>>> Strict priority is not good enough for DetNet. A high priority packet 
>>> may need to wait until the transmission of a lower priority packet is 
>>> finished at an outbound port, which can cause too much uncertainties 
>>> in the network.
>>
>> I understand that strict priority queueing is viewed as insufficient. 
>> I wasn;t arguing about that.  I was arguing with the use of the word 
>> "unbounded".  As far as I can tell, with suitable priority queueing 
>> the worst case delay is bounded, simply not well enough bounded.
>>
>> ...
>>>>      In section 4.1.2, I realized that the Detnet Transit node 
>>>> terminology had
>>>>      mildly confused me.  The text says "DetNet enabled nodes are 
>>>> interconnected
>>>>      via transit nodes (e.g., LSRs) which support DetNet, but are 
>>>> not DetNet
>>>>      service aware."  Reading this, and the definitions in section 
>>>> 2.1, it
>>>>      appears that a Detnet Transit node is a node that is providing 
>>>> transport
>>>>      behavior that detnet needs, but is not actually modified for 
>>>> detnet.
>>> Based on last call comments: 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/detnet/current/msg01791.html, 
>>> the phrase "DetNet enabled nodes" is removed from the document and it 
>>> has been made clear what type of DetNet node is meant:
>>> The text is updated to:
>>>
>>>     A "Deterministic Network" will be composed of DetNet enabled end
>>>     systems, DetNet edge nodes, DetNet relay nodes and collectively
>>>     deliver DetNet services.  DetNet relay and edge nodes are
>>>     interconnected via DetNet transit nodes (e.g., LSRs) which support
>>>     DetNet, but are not DetNet service aware.
>>
>> Any chance you could simply say "transit nodes" instead of "DetNet 
>> transit nodes?  As far as I can tell, they are existing nodes that 
>> were designed and implemented (and even configured) potentially before 
>> DetNet was even defined?
>>
>> ...
>