Subject: [Detnet] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:35:53 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06: No Objection

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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thanks for this document.  The concept seems pretty simple, I just have a few
comments.

3.  DetNet IP Data Plane Overview

In the introduction, I wondered whether it would be useful to mention that the
Detnet forwarding is based on the classification of the 6-tuple that is
programmed via the management plane with the next hop.  E.g. introducing the
key forwarding concept defined in 5.2.

4.2.  DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations

Are the sub networks shown in Figure 4 all detnet aware supporting the service
function?  If so, it may be helpful to explicitly clarify this.

4.3.3.  Path Selection

Like the other reviewers, I found the terminology around using 5-tuple/6-tuples
slightly confusing in places.  In particular, the text in 4.3.3 regarding 5
tuples seemed confusing.  I basically interpreted the text as saying that
5-tuple forwarding already has these issues that must be avoided, and 6 tuple
forwarding is no different.

Should it also mention that EMCP should be avoided as part of this path
selection section?

I note that there is an informative reference to ietf-detnet-yang.  I wasn't
sure whether an informative reference to YANG itself might also be worth adding.

Regards,
Rob

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:09:24 -0400

Hi,

Thank you for the comments.  Please see response (as co-author) in-line
below.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip/

sure, will add:

  The DetNet controller plane, as defined in
         <xref target="RFC8655"/>, is responsible for providing each node
         with the information needed to identify an handle each DetNet flow.

> forwarding is no different.
yes, with the caveat that some language has been tweaked in addressing 
previous comments.
> Should it also mention that EMCP should be avoided as part of this path
It's mentioned latter in the document. Isn't that sufficient?
> sure whether an informative reference to YANG itself might also be worth adding.

I don't think so.  Is that okay?

> Rob
Changes covered here can be previewed at:

https://github.com/detnet-wg/data-plane-drafts/tree/working/lb/iesg-0625

https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/detnet-wg/data-plane-drafts/working/lb/iesg-0625/ip/draft-ietf-detnet-ip.xml

Thank you!

Lou