Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 16:14:41 +0200

Dear All,

The WG last call on this document is closed.

Authors,
Please address any comments received on or off list -- and let the WG 
know how each issues is resolved, as well as when you think the document 
is ready to progress.
(If you have not yet replied on issues sent to the list, then please 
respond directly.)

Thank you,
Janos

On 5/2/2018 6:29 PM, János Farkas wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This starts a two week Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on 
> draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03.
>
> The WGLC ends on May 16.
>
> Please send your comments to the DetNet mailing list.
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>
> Thank you,
> DetNet Chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:16:25 +0000

Hello Janos:

Version 04 was just published with the changes that address the discussions in this thread.
Many thanks to Stewart,  Kiran, Andrew, and yourself actually.

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-04
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-04

Take care,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: detnet <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of János Farkas
> Sent: vendredi 1 juin 2018 16:15
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-03
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please address any comments received on or off list -- and let the WG know
> how each issues is resolved, as well as when you think the document is ready
> to progress.
> (If you have not yet replied on issues sent to the list, then please respond
> directly.)
> 
> Thank you,
> Janos
> 
>

---

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:17:12 +0200

Hi Pascal,

Thank you very much for handling the comments and preparing the update!

In preparation for my shepherd write-up, I've also reviewed the draft. I 
have some small comments:

You expressed in your email that you wanted to follow Stewart’s 
suggestion, but it seems that you missed implementing his first comment 
in the document. As I understand the suggestion is to replace “IP 
network” with “an IP or MPLS network” in:
“As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multihop
path over the IP network, for …”

Item 3) in section 3.4 misses one of the possibilities. An IGP can also 
be an alternative, e.g., IS-IS TE, IS-IS PCR (RFC 7813), which are not 
mentioned. It may be added, e.g.,: "Alternatively, the path may be 
installed by a routing protocol or the routing and flow information may 
be placed in-band in the packet ..."

Item 3) in section 3.4 suggests that MPLS-TE is the only option. I 
suggest to rewrite, e.g.:
“Traffic flows can be transported through an MPLS-TE tunnel, using
the reserved resources for this flow at each hop."

Authentication and authorization are only mentioned for control nodes in 
section 4. I guess it also applies to hosts in a plug-and-play network. 
Maybe we should consider this case too.

A couple of acronyms are not resolved at the first occurrence or at all: 
DetNet, PCE, CSPF, SDN.

In addition to resolving PCE, it would be good to add a reference to RFC 
4655.

I'm afraid it is not easy to find a precise definition of SDN that is 
accepted by all. Therefore, it seems better to avoid the term SDN, i.e., 
delete the single occurrence. The remaining sentence will be complete 
and meaningful, fitting into the context.

CSPF appears only once. The given sentence could be rewritten to:
“A constrained path is calculated with an improved version of a 
constrained shortest path first algorithm that is aware of DetNet."

There seems to be a space before the full stop in the abstract.

ID nits found three unused references:

   == Unused Reference: 'AVnu' is defined on line 404, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

   == Unused Reference: 'EIP' is defined on line 410, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

   == Unused Reference: 'ODVA' is defined on line 449, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

Please update the draft.

Thank you!
Janos

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:30:41 +0100

On 08/06/2018 15:17, János Farkas wrote:
> accepted by all. Therefore, it seems better to avoid the term SDN, 
> i.e., delete the single occurrence. The remaining sentence will be 
> complete and meaningful, fitting into the context. 

Looking at that sentence how about:

OLD
To enable a centralized model, DetNet should produce the complete SDN
architecture with describes at a high level the interaction and data
models to:
NEW
To enable a centralized model, DetNet should produce a description
of the high level the interaction and data
models to:
END

Stewart

---

From: János Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:31:31 +0200

Sounds good.
Maybe we can remove "the" to get:
To enable a centralized model, DetNet should produce a description
of the high level interaction and data models to:

Thank you,
Janos

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:36:07 +0100

Yes, that works.

- S

On 11/06/2018 12:31, János Farkas wrote:
>>> I'm afraid it is not easy to find a precise definition of SDN that 
>>> is accepted by all. Therefore, it seems better to avoid the term 
>>> SDN, i.e., delete the single occurrence. The remaining sentence will 
>>> be complete and meaningful, fitting into the context. 
>>