Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-02.txt>

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 13:40, Thomas Narten <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Here are my detailed comments on the document. I did chat with Brian
> directly in Prague about these points as well. Overall, I support this
> document. But I think the wording in places needs another round of
> revision.
>
>   A flow is a sequence of packets sent from a particular source to a
>   particular unicast, anycast, or multicast destination that a node
>   desires to label as a flow.  A flow could consist of all packets in a
>
> This is a circular definition. I think it would be useful to give two
> definitions, something like the following:
>
>    A Flow is a sequence of packets originating from a particular
>    application that should be treated "the same" by the network as
>    they are forwarded along to their ultimate destination. Packets
>    within a flow should not be reordered, should not be given
>    dissimilar QOS treatment, etc. What constitutes a Flow can only be
>    defined by the application itself.
>

Sorry, Thomas, I don't think this will work.  First, I don't think we can
define a "flow" by what the network should do with it, whatever it is.  If
something is definable, then it has attributes independent of how other
things behave toward it.  It seems that a flow is anything the node labels
with the same flow label.  If so (as in your last sentence), then that's the
only definition you have.  Also, a flow doesn't necessarily originate from a
single application.  It could be multiple.  Some environments don't even
have applications.  My inclination would be to decline this definition
change.

The rest looks good.

Thanks ... Scot