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

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

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?

...