Subject: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:00:29 +0200

All,

In this morning sessions we discussed a two stage adoption call for the
proposed data plane solution:

- in the first stage we collect issues with the -01 individual draft
that WG members would like to see addressed as part of the normal WG
processing of the document.  These issues will then be captured in -02
rev of the individual draft.

- The second stage will be the normal WG adoption process

This message initiates the first stage of adoption.  In this stage we'd
like to collect technical issues to be captured in the -01 draft. 
Specifically, if you have an issue with the draft please:

(a) if an issue with a particular section or sections, please identify
the section(s) and summarize the issue to be captured in the -02 rev of
the draft (your text may be copied verbatim or paraphrased/summarized), or

(b) if not section specific, identify the general issue you'd like to
see captured in an "open issues" section.  Again, your text may be
copied verbatim, paraphrased or summarized.

Please send comments in the next 3 weeks, no later than Thursday, August 10.

Thank you,

Pat and Lou

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:36:29 +0200

Lou,

Shouldn't you first get WG agreement to run a non-standard process?

Stewart

> On 20 Jul 2017, at 12:00 pm, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:42:05 +0200

Stewart,

> Shouldn't you first get WG agreement to run a non-standard process?

The only "standard process" I'm aware of is RFC 7221 (the document is
Informational). In that document there is a list of steps, but it also
says:

    "No formal specification for working group 'adoption' of a draft
    exists; the current document is meant to provide a description of
    common activities for this, but again note that it is not normative."

It also says "Obtain working group rough consensus."

I'd say that the method to do this is pretty much up to the wg chairs.

Now, if you think the process Lou and Pat implement is "bad" you
could say so, but I don't think it is enough just to claim it is "non-
standard".

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 13:51:19 +0200

Lou,

One thing I feel that we need to do is to look at how GACh works with
replication and elimination.

The document does not specify OAM functions, but I think that the data
channels for OAM should be within scope of the document.

/Loa

--

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:57:43 +0100

I will do a detailed review a bit later, but I think we need to mark the 
IPv6 encapsulation as undecided, and I think that we need to have a 
serious discussion in the WG about the proposal to perform an 
intermediate triage of duplicate packets. Doing the triage at S-PEs adds 
a lot of complexity and posiibly a lot of silicon expense whereas a 
simpler approach that would be to do standard 1+1 or even 1+n and 
de-duplicate at the edge of the network. So I think we need to donsider 
that as undecided at this stage.

I am not sure what the scaling constraints that are proposed are, but 
S-PE can have huge numbers of PWs flowing through them.

- Stewart

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:08:33 +0200

Stewart,

    I'm not sure what process is non-standard.  We have had a DT formed
and run according to BCP 25, section 6.5. At this point, per formal
process, the WG chairs *could* just take the DT output as a WG
document.  We (chairs) don't think that is would be a good idea and want
to ensure that we have general WG support for *starting* our standard
and typical WG processes with the DT output.  Once we have a WG draft,
its contents would of course be controlled by the WG. 

In today's meeting, we heard concerns that a -00 WG document could be
interpreted by some as indicating a direction that they have concerns
about or disagree with, and therefore they would object to its
publication.  We also discussed that capturing objections in the
individual draft would be sufficient to address these concerns (at least
for some).  To ensure that all had an opportunity to have their issues
and concerns captured, the chairs agreed to explicitly solicit the WG,
on list, for items/topics to be captured.

At this point, I hope you (and others) will send the issues/topics you'd
like to see addressed in the WG document.  When doing so, please reply
to the original message.

Please use this new subject line/thread to follow up with any process
related discussion.

Cheers,
Lou

---

From: Norman Finn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:33:18 +0000

Stewart,

Detnet in no way removes the standard 1+1 approaches from the repertoire of features available to use cases not encompassed by the currently-adopted use cases draft.  However, a number of our use cases place a limit on the number of consecutive packets lost that the standard 1+1 approach cannot meet.  That's why we are exploring techniques that are both more capable and more difficult to implement.  I'm happy to hear about a new use case (network slicing), but that does not invalidate the requirements that we have already addressed successfully.  The same arguments apply to other irrelevant solutions such as congestion notification.

Certainly, if you posit a different set of use cases with different requirements, you'll get a different answer.  That is not helpful.  Please read the use cases and architecture documents to better understand what is driving the other current drafts.  You might look at the problems statement, also.  I apologize for letting it lapse.

-- Norm
________________________________________
From: detnet [[email-masked]] on behalf of Stewart Bryant [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 4:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol

- Stewart

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:45:39 +0200

I think it's worth noting, and capturing in the -02 version, Jeff T's
comment regarding using the EVPN (data plane),with all-active for DetNet
encapsulation and foundation for protection.

Lou

---

From: Norman Finn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:52:47 +0000

Something I missed, and don't want to give the wrong impression.  Standard 1+1 approaches may be appropriate for some of the use cases that *are* in our use cases document, as well as those that are not included.  I'm sure that there are applications that need bounded latency, but do not have a requirement never to lose 2 packets in a row.  But, I don't think that we are throwing any tools out of the toolbox.  We are adding some (packet replication and elimination) that are very much required by applications in which we have interest.

-- Norm
________________________________________
From: Norman Finn
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 5:33 AM
To: Stewart Bryant; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Detnet] 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol

Stewart,

-- Norm

- Stewart

---

From: "Jouni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:10:02 +0300

> Certainly, if you posit a different set of use cases with different
> requirements, you'll get a different answer.  That is not helpful.  Please
> read the use cases and architecture documents to better understand what is
> driving the other current drafts.  You might look at the problems
> statement, also.  I apologize for letting it lapse.

Furthermore, the data plane solution alternatives did look into & discuss
multiple choices. That gives some additional background why we ended up to
where we are now with the data plane solution proposal. Btw, the
alternatives draft, which guided the solution work, is a WG draft.

- Jouni

> serious discussion in the WG about the proposal to perform an intermediate
> triage of duplicate packets. Doing the triage at S-PEs adds a lot of
> complexity and posiibly a lot of silicon expense whereas a simpler
> approach that would be to do standard 1+1 or even 1+n and de-duplicate at
> the edge of the network. So I think we need to donsider that as undecided
> at this stage.
> 
> I am not sure what the scaling constraints that are proposed are, but S-PE
> can have huge numbers of PWs flowing through them.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> >> In this morning sessions we discussed a two stage adoption call for
> >> the proposed data plane solution:
> >>
> >> processing of the document.  These issues will then be captured in
> >> -02 rev of the individual draft.
> >>
> >> This message initiates the first stage of adoption.  In this stage
> >> we'd like to collect technical issues to be captured in the -01 draft.
> >> (a) if an issue with a particular section or sections, please
> >> identify the section(s) and summarize the issue to be captured in the
> >> -02 rev of the draft (your text may be copied verbatim or
> >> paraphrased/summarized), or
> >>