[Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06
Niklas Widell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 15 February 2021 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietf.org
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139483A0CE8; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:06:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Niklas Widell via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
Cc: detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161340516304.11578.12630851114853164201@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Niklas Widell <niklas.widell@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:06:03 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/M0Uphy5kozKcWVH-sxpVGvIdrHk>
Subject: [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:06:03 -0000
Reviewer: Niklas Widell Review result: Ready with Nits I have reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn from IoT point of view, as part of IoT directorate document reviews. The document specifies the DetNet IP data plane when operating on a TSN sub-network, and builds on RFC8939 and RFC8565 to do so. The document is well-written and appears to be Ready (with some minor nits). I did not identify any IoT related issues with the document. Nits: - RFC8939 reference does not render as link in section 1, first paragraph, but works in the second paragraph. In section 3 again no link. - Section 1, third paragraph: This sentence is strange: "As described in [RFC8939] no DetNet specific headers are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are supported inside the DetNet domain." - section 2.2. Abbreviations DF and PREOF not used in rest of document. - general, mix of using L2 and Layer-2 - general, there are some long, complex to parse, sentences that could perhaps be split or rephrased into something clearer. E.g. 4.2, third paragraph, "In cases of TSN-unaware IP DetNet nodes the TSN relay nodes within the TSN sub-network must modify the Ethernet encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific handling inside the sub-network." - general, IEEE specs are referred to as "IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]", which makes the many references to clauses long to read. Can't you just say e.g., "Clause 6.6 of [IEEE8021CB]" instead of ""Clause 6.6 of IEEE8021CB [IEEE8021CB]", except for maybe the first reference?
- [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-… Niklas Widell via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-i… Balázs Varga A