Re: [Raw] New Version Notification for draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt

Hi Pascal,

I like the approach reflected in the first two milestones in the RAW charter. I found this multiple times a good way of working; namely, to collect use cases and then collect the requirements out of the use cases. I think this helps understanding the problem we are about to solve. Perhaps requirements is close to problem statement. I'd be glad to see then what can we do with current IETF technology to meet the requirements / solve the problem and what are the gaps. This may help seeing clearer what could be useful to include in a framework/architecture.
I understand that these work items are not completely sequential but run with some overlaps.

Since you brought up the BoF, the consensus reached on the BoF:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-raw/
" If do WG for only first 2 work items, informational, do poll again: For/against was maybe 80 vs 20."
where the work items were:
"1) Produce informational documents describing deterministic wireless  use cases, in continuation to the DetNet Use Cases document
 2) Produce informational documents describing the technologies that the  group will cover (e.g., URLLC, TSCH, 802.11ax/be and possibly LDACS)"

As you asked feedback about architecture; honestly, I prefer framework to architecture. Architecture for me is kind of a solution. I'm most familiar with DetNet, so I'll take it as example. I think RFC 8655 DetNet Architecture outlines at a high level the DetNet solution to the problem coming from RFC 8578 DetNet Use Cases and RFC 8577 DetNet Problem Statement. Of course, RFC 8655 does not provide the solution details, they are provided by individual drafts like the data plane drafts; but still RFC 8655 is a solution at high level.

The RAW charter says: "RAW is not chartered to work on a solution."

So, a framework seems to be better to me than architecture in order to remain in the scope of the charter.

As for framework, the DetNet Controller Plane Framework draft comes to my mind. In the DetNet WG we discussed with regards to this draft that it is good, but it should not specify solution details.

I know, the charter uses "architecture/framework". 
I'm just expressing an opinion on which one I'd suggest out of the two options for the reasons explained above.

Best regards,
Janos

-----Original Message-----
From: RAW <raw-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 3:27 PM
To: raw@ietf.org
Cc: raw-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Raw] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt

Dear all:

The collection of documents that we built for the BoF does not match the list of deliverables that we have now committed with the RAW charter. In particular, the charter expects a requirement draft and an architecture draft but does not require a problem statement.

Georgios and I picked and restructured text from the PAREO requirements and the PS draft, and started an architecture document. I just pushed the first version to hint the group of where we wish to go and solicit early feedback. Please expect revisions soon to add more architecture text.

Comments welcome!

Keep safe...

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> 
Sent: mercredi 1 avril 2020 15:14
To: Georgios Z. Papadopoulos <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>; Georgios Papadopoulos <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pascal Thubert and posted to the IETF repository.

Name:		draft-pthubert-raw-architecture
Revision:	00
Title:		Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture
Document date:	2020-04-01
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		16
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture

Abstract:
   Due to uncontrolled interferences, including the self-induced
   multipath fading, deterministic networking can only be approached on
   wireless links.  The radio conditions may change -way- faster than a
   centralized routing can adapt and reprogram, in particular when the
   controller is distant and connectivity is slow and limited.  RAW
   separates the routing time scale at which a complex path is
   recomputed from the forwarding time scale at which the forwarding
   decision is taken for an individual packet.  RAW operates at the
   forwarding time scale.  The RAW problem is to decide, within the
   redundant solutions that are proposed by the routing, which will be
   used for each individual packet to provide a DetNet service while
   minimizing the waste of resources.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
RAW mailing list
RAW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw