[Last-Call] Re: [Detnet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-raw-technologies-10

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

SA3 is meeting the week of 11 Nov.
The rest of the groups are meeting the week of 18 Nov.

If the WG believes input from 3GPP is important for this work to progress or that the claims made in the draft need to verified, making the LS for action is appropriate. However, if the LS is being done as more of a courtesy to merely inform 3GPP, for information is more appropriate.

The deadline for contributions for the SA3 meeting is Nov 4, 15:00 UTC. The deadline for the others is one week later.

Cheers,
Charles (IETF liaison manager to 3GPP)

On Nov 1, 2024, at 3:02 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

Hi Janos, all,

Thank you for taking care of this.

I have one comment on the LS, I suggest we tag this as “Purpose: for action”, not “Purpose: for information” as currently proposed in the link below.

I don’t know when these groups (3GPP in particular) are meeting, but it would be fair to set a deadline that will be aligned with their schedules. I trust LS coordinators have more visibility on this.

Cheers,
Med

De : Janos Farkas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : jeudi 31 octobre 2024 23:16
À : Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-raw-technologies-10

Indeed.

We are sending an LS to 3GPP: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/A2ko_G738sT_4a3l2jOw91qrpSQ/

As for IEEE 802.11 and 802.15:
There is a coordination team between the IETF and IEEE 802:https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/ietfieee/about/
The subject was discussed at the last call of the team. The team concluded that instead of a formal LS, IEEE 802.11 and 802.15 WG will be informed about draft-ietf-raw-technologies and suggested to send comments to DetNet WG if any.
This is under coordination Item 25: Layer 2/Layer 3 Interaction for Time-Sensitive Traffic
Minutes are available at: minutes-interim-2024-ietfieee-03-202410231600-00.md<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-ietfieee-03/materials/minutes-interim-2024-ietfieee-03-202410231600-00>

Regards,
Janos


From: Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 5:24 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-raw-technologies-10

Yes, they are on it!

Le lun. 21 oct. 2024 à 11:23, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
Salut Pascal,

Many thanks for taking care of the comments. This version is much more better.

I guess the only pending comment is on the hands of the Chairs/AD:


> ## Liaise with material owners
>
> The material included in various sections is owned by other SDOs.
> Unless this is already done, it would be reasonable to send LSes to at
> least 3GPP/IEEE to review relevant sections.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Envoyé : dimanche 20 octobre 2024 16:47
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-raw-
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-raw-
> technologies-10
>
>
> Hello Med:
>
> It took a few publications but I believe your comments related to
> the document are now addressed.
>
> Please let us know. Again many thanks for your in-depth review !
>
> A bientôt;
>
> Pascal
>
> > Le 10 sept. 2024 à 15:46, Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
> >
> > Reviewer: Mohamed Boucadair
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > Hi authors,
> >
> > Many thanks for the effort put into this document along several
> years.
> >
> > I reviewed the document from an ops-dir review, but I also have
> more
> > general
> > comments:
> >
> > # OPS
> >
> > Although mentioned too late in the document (security section),
> the
> > document says explicitly that it does not include any ops
> > considerations. It is fair to set that scope given the rich
> content of
> > the document and main objective to describe technologies
> themselves.
> > However, such mention should be included early in the document.
> >
> > There are ops considerations that are applicable to scheduling
> > resources in general, path computation, or synchronization
> matters.
> > Nevertheless, given that the objectives is not to provide
> > recommendations about the various technologies, I would not ask
> the
> > authors to add NEW text with these considerations for each
> technology. That would be over-specifying here.
> > Instead, the authors may include relevant pointer are readily
> > available. This is not even needed with the suggested note about
> ops
> > considerations are not in scope.
> >
> > The document includes an OAM section for one specific
> technology, but
> > that section is too brief and does include up-to-date specific
> > pointers. Cited documents are generic or expired since a while.
> >
> > # Generic
> >
> > ## Target audience/consumer of this material
> >
> > I know that it is frustrating to receive this kind of comments
> after
> > many years of effort maintaining this doc, but I sincerely think
> that
> > the document lacks some words to explain the rationale of
> collecting
> > this material and how this is intended to be used in the IETF.
> This
> > clarification is specifically needed as some of the text needs
> some
> > refresh (see next point). Including such text will also help
> > understanding the value of publishing this as an RFC (which I
> suspect this might be questioned by some).
> >
> > ## Stale/Need to refresh
> >
> > The text includes stale text (e.g., pointer to specs that
> expired
> > several years ago, text that won't age well, text that need to
> be
> > refreshed to reflect progress (or lack of progress in cited
> SDOs). I
> > tagged some off those in my review, but I can't claim that I
> tagged all of them.
> >
> > The text can be cleaned in several places to avoid what can be
> seen as
> > speculating or over-selling some efforts.
> >
> > ## Liaise with material owners
> >
> > The material included in various sections is owned by other
> SDOs.
> > Unless this is already done, it would be reasonable to send LSes
> to at
> > least 3GPP/IEEE to review relevant sections.
> >
> > # Detailed review
> >
> > A more detailed review can be found using the following links:
> >
> > * pdf:
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> gith
> > ub.com<http://ub.com/>%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-
> Reviews%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2F2024%2Fdraf
> > t-ietf-raw-technologies-10-
> rev%2520Med.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.bouc
> >
> adair%40orange.com<http://40orange.com/>%7C715b80d2604a4fa92bac08dcf1161da4%7C90c7a20af3
> 4b40
> >
> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638650324528306025%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
> Zsb3
> >
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
> 3D%7
> >
> C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FkBQWne80B1hr2fqyIv6rWNEujEcDuXSHpGBOYp1U0g%3D&r
> eser
> > ved=0
> > * doc:
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> gith
> > ub.com<http://ub.com/>%2Fboucadair%2FIETF-Drafts-
> Reviews%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2F2024%2Fdraf
> > t-ietf-raw-technologies-10-
> rev%2520Med.doc&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.bouc
> >
> adair%40orange.com<http://40orange.com/>%7C715b80d2604a4fa92bac08dcf1161da4%7C90c7a20af3
> 4b40
> >
> bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638650324528325766%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
> Zsb3
> >
> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
> 3D%7
> >
> C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GfdxPRKY0H1hAndQtX2EwwG9D1OTu0qnqQzBrHMsi1Q%3D&r
> eser
> > ved=0
> >
> > Feel free to grab whatever you think useful for the document.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.


--
Pascal

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>