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

Hi Pascal,

Please see few notes in-line  as [Janos Farkas].

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>
Cc: raw@ietf.org; raw-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-00.txt

Hello Janos:

I'll change the title to add /Framework in 01, no worries.

I have seen a lot of cross participation with DetNet, including you, so I'm reasonably sure that we have that side covered. RAW also attracts wireless experts that did not participate to DetNet. I do not take it as a requirement that what this resulting team produces is a subset of DetNet and is contained in the DetNet Architecture. I actually expect new approaches that are specific to RAW in addition to those inherited from DetNet and possibly extended. 

If that's correct we'll need a new architecture, and we want the wireless experts to help us produce it. 

[Janos Farkas] 
I fully agree that it is absolutely great to have expertise attracted to IETF and involved in our work, and get people with various expertise  work together.

I agree that the architecture is the beginning of a solution, 

[Janos Farkas] 
This is my concern. By developing solution we go beyond the charter.
I think we would rather fit in the charter if we develop a framework, not an architecture. So, I'd suggest to remove architecture and only keep framework.

All the best,
Janos

which is composed of many components that the architecture outlines. That's the reason why it must come the best informed party, and hopefully RAW is the group that has formed for that at the IETF. 

All in all I believe that the charter makes  a lot of sense.

Keep safe,

Pascal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>
> Sent: mercredi 1 avril 2020 22:10
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: raw@ietf.org; raw-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: 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