Re: [Raw] [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,
Should RAW and denet combined into one group?

Thanks
Hesham

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023, 8:40 PM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Lou and all
>
>
>
> I captured some of the meeting conclusions in one slide that I added to
> the presentation on architecture for DetNet / RAW tomorrow. Please let me
> know if you have any issue with it. We still have to discuss the new North.
>
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
> *From:* Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 22, 2023 3:25 AM
> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Eve Schooler <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; John Scudder <[e-mail]
> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
> ----------
> On July 21, 2023 11:51:37 PM "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Lou;
> >
> > For the term tracks I believe we spent half the London meeting on just
> that item with the group in the room and settled to what we have now. It is
> not track vs protection path. A track is a collection of protection paths.
> We cannot keep reopening the subject.
> >
>
> Agreeing  on  terminology is often really hard - particularly when
> different groups come from different backgrounds and years of independent
> work.  6TISCH has tracks, TE/DetNet has protection paths, and more
> generally recovery.  I continue to view what is being described in the raw
> architecture is a wireless tailored form of protection (and actually not
> radically different from traditional 1+n protection, where outside the
> protection domain it is impossible to know which protection path was used.)
>
> I don't recall the 115 discussion closing on this point.  Rereading
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-115-raw-202211110930/ leaves me
> with just the opposite impression. I do see that some volunteered to work
> with you on a terminology alignment discussion.  Did those conversations
> ever happen?
>
>
> > For the other terms I’m fully open to discussion and have no objection
> converging the SL definitions with TEAS, happy to work that out along your
> recommendations.
> >
> > For PSE and aCPF, they are functions that RAW adds incrementally to
> DetNet. How can they collide? What would be the equivalent protection
> functionality defined elsewhere?
> >
>
> I think you are definining something new - a wireless tailored protection
> function.  I'm not suggesting getting rid of it, just that it is described
> reusing existing terminology wherever possible.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > Le 21 juil. 2023 à 15:58, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> >
> > 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm going to fail to get all my comments in by today's deadline, but
> will write them on on the plane tomorrow.  They are going to build on my
> previous comments sent to the RAW list that were never fully addressed in
> [1] and in previous sessions.
> >
> > The big one is alignment of terminology of the document with the rest of
> DetNet/TE, including (for example):
> >     Track vs protection path
> >     RAW SLA/SLO/SL vs TEAS definitions
> >     aCPF/PSE vs  detnet  (and other WG) protection terminology
> >
> > Others include description of DetNet domains that span wireless (RAW)
> and wired networks, and operation of RAW over wireless networks defined by
> outside of IETF (which may or may not support DLEP).
> >
> > I'll send more  tomorrow.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/1czSAxtRt94lpv_KZPGb5N3l3ko/
> >
> > On 6/23/2023 1:11 PM, Eve Schooler wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > This starts working group last call on draft-ietf-raw-architecture-11
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-architecture/<
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-pof/>
> >
> > The working group last call ends on Friday, July 21st, the Friday before
> IETF 117.
> > Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.
> >
> > Two IPR disclosures have been made for this document thus far (in tandem
> with WGLC, in a separate e-mail, we will solicit all
> co-authors/contributors for any additional disclosures).
> >
> > All comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready
> for publication", are welcome.
> > This is useful and important, even from authors.
> >
> >
> > In preparation for the transition of the RAW WG to roll back into the
> DetNet WG, we are issuing this as a joint WGLC to both WGs.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Eve (RAW Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > detnet mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>