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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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?
>>
>> ...
>