Subject: [Detnet] Alia Atlas' Block on charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: (with BLOCK)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 07:19:31 -0700

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to see restrictions and assumptions in the charter about the
intended
reach of this technology.  I would be quite concerned if it is expected
to go across the
general Internet - due to the hardware requirements, for instance - but I
see no indications
of expected distance or scope.

Sorry for the very lateness of this concern - though I have mentioned it
before - but I'm
on vacation and this charter showed up on the telechat after I was
already out.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:28:08 -0400

Hi Alia,

> I would like to see restrictions and assumptions in the charter about
> the intended reach of this technology.

I think we're all in sync on this - as was briefly discussed in the BoF
when you raised the topic. This was exactly the motivation for adding
"constrained" in:

   - Problem statement and (constrained) deployment environments

Also we looked at the MPLS charter, as it has similar constraints, in
trying to come up words to address this and really didn't find anything.

Do you any suggested language addition/changes to address this?

Thanks,

Lou

On 09/03/2015 10:19 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:17:56 +0000

Hello Alia:

An earlier version of this charter (https://bitbucket.org/pthubert/detnet/raw/af7ef7b9f5802aca0816fd1e184e57bff74045dd/detnet%20charter.txt) had the following sentence:

"
The considered network will initially be of a moderate size, composed of mixed Layer-2 / Layer-3 sub-networks of IEEE802.1 bridges, routers, and hosts. A single administrative domain such as a campus, a Small/Home office Network, or a controlled Wide Area Network will be assumed to start with, and approaches that can be applied to the Internet at large will be favored.
"

This was removed in a search of simplification. Should we reintroduce (some of) it?

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
> Sent: jeudi 3 septembre 2015 16:20
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Detnet] Alia Atlas' Block on charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: (with
> BLOCK)
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> 
> intended reach of this technology.  I would be quite concerned if it is
> expected to go across the general Internet - due to the hardware
> requirements, for instance - but I see no indications of expected distance or
> scope.
> 
> before - but I'm on vacation and this charter showed up on the telechat
> after I was already out.
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:17:54 -0400

How about adding:
    The Working Group will focus on solutions for constrained environments,
    such as those that may be deployed in a single administrative domains.

after the existing first sentence
   The Deterministic Networking (DetNet
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/DetNet>) Working Group will
focus on deterministic data paths that operate over layer 2 bridged and
layer 3 routed segments, where such paths can provide bounds on latency,
loss, and packet delay variation (jitter).

Lou

---

From: Rodney Cummings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:51:09 -0500

As a slight tweak, how about:
    The Working Group will focus on solutions for constrained 
environments,
    such as those that may be deployed in a single administrative domain 
    in which all bridges and routers support the features required
    in order to provide determinism.

In addition to clarifying the scope of the network (i.e. not the entire 
Internet), this might help to address the middlebox concern. I agree with 
Jouni's point that if a middlebox exists in the DetNet domain, we assume 
that it uses DetNet features for determinism, so there is no reason to 
hide the payload with encryption or similar mechanisms.

From:   Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
To:     "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>, Alia Atlas 
<[email-masked]>, 
Cc:     "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date:   09/04/2015 08:18 AM
Subject:        Re: [Detnet] Alia Atlas' Block on 
charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: (with BLOCK)
Sent by:        "detnet" <[email-masked]>

How about adding:
    The Working Group will focus on solutions for constrained 
environments,
    such as those that may be deployed in a single administrative domains.

Lou

On 9/4/2015 6:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hello Alia:
>
> An earlier version of this charter (
https://bitbucket.org/pthubert/detnet/raw/af7ef7b9f5802aca0816fd1e184e57bff74045dd/detnet%20charter.txt
) had the following sentence:
>
> "
> The considered network will initially be of a moderate size, composed of 
mixed Layer-2 / Layer-3 sub-networks of IEEE802.1 bridges, routers, and 
hosts. A single administrative domain such as a campus, a Small/Home 
office Network, or a controlled Wide Area Network will be assumed to start 
with, and approaches that can be applied to the Internet at large will be 
favored.
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all 
email
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/
the

---

From: "Pat (Patricia) Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:34:50 +0000

I was about to suggest something similar when I noticed yours. It is an important point. The IEEE 802.1 TSN assumption is that the feature is provided in a TSN cloud where all the forwarding devices support the features.

Alia's comment mentions "indications of expected distance."  There isn't a distance number in the charter because there is a continuum of use cases with differing distance and latency requirements.  Obviously as distance goes up, latency and jitter increase, but there are still applications that benefit from that determinism. At large distances (e.g. >200 km), you wouldn't get the performance needed by professional audio/video, but can meet the needs of electrical utilities managing the distribution grid.

The unifying feature is having a network where the bridges and routers support the features required to bound latency to a number that supports the application.

Regards,
Pat

From: Rodney Cummings [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 7:51 AM
To: Lou Berger
Cc: Alia Atlas; [email-masked]; detnet; The IESG; Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Alia Atlas' Block on charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: (with BLOCK)

In addition to clarifying the scope of the network (i.e. not the entire Internet), this might help to address the middlebox concern. I agree with Jouni's point that if a middlebox exists in the DetNet domain, we assume that it uses DetNet features for determinism, so there is no reason to hide the payload with encryption or similar mechanisms.

From:        Lou Berger <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
To:        "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>,
Cc:        "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date:        09/04/2015 08:18 AM
Subject:        Re: [Detnet] Alia Atlas' Block on charter-ietf-detnet-00-00: (with BLOCK)
Sent by:        "detnet" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
________________________________

How about adding:

Lou

On 9/4/2015 6:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> To: The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
>> Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
>> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:53:06 -0400

Hi Pascal,

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> https://bitbucket.org/pthubert/detnet/raw/af7ef7b9f5802aca0816fd1e184e57bff74045dd/detnet%20charter.txt)
> had the following sentence:
>
> "
> hosts. A single administrative domain such as a campus, a Small/Home office
> Network, or a controlled Wide Area Network will be assumed to start with,
> and approaches that can be applied to the Internet at large will be favored.
> "
>

I think that this text is getting much closer.  I'd change to "and
approaches that could be applied to the Internet at large will be favored."
 I am concerned that even this phrasing implies a gradual progression of
the technology to the general Internet and I really don't see that as
practical.

Regards,
Alia