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

János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com> Wed, 06 February 2019 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.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 5FDBC130F80 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:17:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 MvEMN66Tpqw5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (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 1A813130F6C for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 14:17:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1549491466; x=1552083466; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0CLOuOBeszV3Lxa4Yo9O7HLWmxgtrj84vUI9zZLtDfw=; b=RAlhiuchSCgTSZUk0rjgm6U8wh2paQS6H5fSsZQ1YjsvZ5Qb/5w/3zzlUPw1VZpH Wf0lXGX1Ouhw/VWtYgxq2U686YD0dTXGmn8da7m3umPQthqmBBLJ+vkGk+b5qj6n 1URPPUbskMyRU5d5fcGrfYdcxvf3NlrqNJa0UVsGhwY=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-fabff7000000355c-aa-5c5b5d0ae756
Received: from ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.122]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5E.BE.13660.A0D5B5C5; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 23:17:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.122) by ESESSMB504.ericsson.se (153.88.183.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 23:17:46 +0100
Received: from [100.94.32.17] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.192) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.1466.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 23:17:46 +0100
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.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>
From: János Farkas <janos.farkas@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <dadb5852-1e36-fcb5-0d33-7dec28cd6624@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 23:17:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ce26f203-2429-1eaf-4b5e-c81c2b76bed4@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7lS5XbHSMwep+LYvfn2azWFx99ZnF 4uOpN0wOzB5Llvxk8jg35TtjAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8al9WwF28QrZvf9ZW9gfCXUxcjJ ISFgInHo4FqmLkYuDiGBI4wSp/+0MkI4Xxkl7v2ezw7hHGKUWH5lHRtIi7CAp8TbzZNYQWwR AW2J/Us+MIHYzALGEgtmfWKDaFjHKLFuTwszSIJNwF7i7qUNYDYvkP197z8wm0VAReLCmQ/s ILaoQKzEpyuLoWoEJU7OfMICYnMKOEv07m5ghlhgITFz/nlGCFteonnrbKi4uMStJ/PBjhAS UJP49PYh+wRGoVlIRs1C0j4LSfssJO0LGFlWMYoWpxYn5aYbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgQG +8Etvw12ML587niIUYCDUYmHtzsqOkaINbGsuDIXGDwczEoivG+fRcUI8aYkVlalFuXHF5Xm pBYfYpTmYFES5/0jJBgjJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYIzQt5xxzSCPNdM3aL6GrsrE1G9r /v26uGHXD+utT5YvbT2f5WurwPNfpjeu0LVcxGlSQM5Ldq/XTdlTCo7b2Sy4rsl2wWbJkVOp mQfSi3o0X5ftkFGwV7ks2OlrkJH57xdLU5J3Qe/dzrbgSs/eQ4Ex26J1p4i6yJhd6rc61N89 Lc6jK+mgEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAMZFSYHICAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/L1lA-KZNb1exBMqw11pBS3-rW0Y>
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: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:17:56 -0000

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?
>
> ...