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

[Ines Robles <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

Thank you for your reply. I agree with your suggestions.

Cheers,

Ines.

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:26 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Ines
>
> Many thanks for your review.
>
> I see this recurring point of adding references to the other detnet
> documents; I'm happy to follow this advice, noting though that these are
> forward pointers since the problem statement comes first.
>
> Please see below:
>
> > 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?
> >
> [PT>] what about:
> "
>       Forward note: The <xref target='I-D.ietf-detnet-architecture'>
>       DetNet Architecture</xref> is the document produced by the DetNet WG
> to
>       describe that 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?
> [PT>] Can we add after the latter sentence:
>
> "
> In other words, a Deterministic Network is backwards compatible with -
> capable
> of transporting - statistically multiplexed traffic while preserving the
> properties of the accepted deterministic flows.
> "
>
> >
> > 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]?"
> [PT>] I'm not too inclined because this sentence is about a lot more than
> DP
> encoding, ad because this is really fast forwarding a lot.
>
> >
> > 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?
> >
> [PT>] You're right, that fit in both places.
>
> > Nits:
> >
> > It would be nice to expand DetNet in Section 1, since it is the first
> time that it is
> > mentioned.
> >
> [PT>] done
>
> Many Thanks, Ines : )
>
> Pascal
>
>