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

[Eve Schooler <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hesham,

That is exactly what is planned - to roll RAW back into DetNet (from which it originated). 

—Eve

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2023, at 9:22 PM, Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]> wrote:



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/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow">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/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow"> 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/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-architecture/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-pof/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet" rel="noreferrer noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet