[PANRG] Feedback on draft-zheng-panrg-path-properties-istn-00
Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net> Thu, 11 March 2021 17:09 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@tenghardt.net>
X-Original-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: panrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCF33A13E9 for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:09:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tenghardt.net
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 RxnYiRSEuIrJ for <panrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hemio.de (mail.hemio.de [136.243.12.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4070C3A14B2 for <panrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:09:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from user.client.invalid (localhost [136.243.12.180]) by mail.hemio.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B48DAA; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:09:29 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tenghardt.net; s=20170414; t=1615482570; bh=CnpCJTHlprsNI3ShPBa9drCcA9Mpja8tYhxW8+M/yO0=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:Date:From; b=LvLRsKaE/2uE1QYrfjZJZHfybDkAtbYbuILsbGzDM7mCJ2p+u5Vej7ZdvsQmZTf9g pC1CGVpoULCSS9DD96IPB/VjoYsEhHP+4QJEcMUy9Obh6J7Tuf3uiRMUlTMsnW4WG7 tllB+oSC/W4SmxeYBQ4LSCzufHOQ/2YHO4NANAP+afbV+sKrn1KN2GZHPVZL5rPuPN 6ZKXvZrKjuIIevynxMy6I6bN9veXXFJRaIMhSMBkLGUlnmNOwZiDQPG519rV7bEtZd CTw7nuzH36ZT1/eVUM23Ev4nCbVcqZW+A72iqseiQkEHHmMz4N1uhtGoZocEIWDD7E qFrRojfgLHUbw==
From: Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
To: draft-zheng-panrg-path-properties-istn@ietf.org
Cc: "panrg@irtf.org" <panrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <fb02b5ba-ce6e-c503-6872-7e50be3a5ba7@tenghardt.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 09:09:27 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/panrg/plIMp6Zo8JywY_Lt9DudgNEhxOk>
Subject: [PANRG] Feedback on draft-zheng-panrg-path-properties-istn-00
X-BeenThere: panrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Path Aware Networking \(Proposed\) Research Group discussion list" <panrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:panrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg>, <mailto:panrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 17:09:44 -0000
Dear draft authors, Thank you for posting draft-zheng-panrg-path-properties-istn-00 and for presenting it at the IETF 110 PANRG session! I've read the draft and I agree that ISTN is an interesting field for path awareness. A few questions and comments: 1. The abstract says that the use case is "integrated space-terrestrial networks". I think it should be more specific: Is the use case path selection? Is it (also) something else? For path selection, does the definition in Section 3.1 of the Path Properties draft fit your use case, or are you missing anything from that section? -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-02#section-3.1 2. In the introduction, the draft defines a path as a series of links that connect a series of nodes from the source node to destination, referring to RFC 5136. In Section 2, the draft lists path elements corresponding to individual nodes and links. I think that's a good starting point, but I'm wondering if a more generic definition would work better. Then, path elements could be more abstract: Not just a single node or link, but also an entire network, for example. This would be useful, as the endpoint may not have insight into all path elements, and it may be difficult to make every endpoint aware of every single path element. So, would it be better to consider more abstract path elements here, e.g., consider an entire network as a path element with its own properties? 3. The draft considers properties of the entire path and properties of each individual path element (node or link). I think it could be helpful to consider subpaths as well, for example, the "space part" of a path or the "terrestrial part" of a path, or the subpath traversing a specific network. Then, a network provider could expose information about this subpath, instead of exposing information about every individual path element. What do you think? 4. The draft defines availability as a path property, which makes a lot of sense to me. In contrast, the Path Properties draft defines a path as a "sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can be transmitted". Does this part of the path definition work for you? I think the definition could be stretched to say "the path exists even though a packet cannot be transmitted over it right now, but it will become available again soon". Do you agree? Thank you for the draft, and I'm looking forward to hearing more! Best, Theresa
- [PANRG] Feedback on draft-zheng-panrg-path-proper… Theresa Enghardt