[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Has Nits

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-foo-name/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

<case 1> As this document has recently been adopted by the working group, my
focus for the review is on providing a new perspective on the work, with the
intention of catching any issues early on in the document's life cycle.

<case 2> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the
review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please
consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.

<case 3> If neither of the above describes the circumstances of the review,
then write a brief summary of the reasons for and purpose of the review here
(get this from the WG chair if you are not sure).

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-name-version.txt
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2018-09-30
Intended Status: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06

Summary:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and
clear to understand.

The document describes the needs in various industries to establish multi-hop
paths for characterized flows with deterministic properties.

This document is basically ready for publication, but I have some minor
questions that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

1)- In section 1 you mention: "....a new model must be proposed to integrate
determinism in IT technology..." Do you think it is useful to mention
draft-ietf-detnet-architecture as a starting point for the model?

2)- In Section 1: "the model should not compromise the ability of a network to
keep carrying the sorts of traffic that is already carried today in conjunction
with new, more deterministic flows.", and in Section 2 "The goals of
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) are .... and to support both these new
applications, and existing packet network applications, over the same physical
network." Those sentences seems to be related with Interoperability, but
Interoperability is not explicitly mentioned in the document. Do you think that
it should be?

3)- In Section 2: "Multiple methods to schedule, shape, limit, and otherwise
control the transmission of critical packets at each hop through the network
data plane;" Do you think that it would be good to add something like: "Detnet
is working on IP Data Plane Encapsulation [ref.] and on MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation [ref]?"

4)- In Section 2: "Robust defenses against misbehaving hosts, routers, or
bridges,both in the data and control planes...." Do you think that it would be
good to add here or in the security considerations section (maybe better) a
reference to draft-ietf-detnet-security?

Nits:

It would be nice to expand DetNet in Section 1, since it is the first time that
it is mentioned.

Thanks for this document,

Ines.