Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 01:25:36 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: 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-problem-statement/

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

Section 2

   Robustness is a common need for networking protocols, but plays a
   more important part in real-time control networks, where expensive
   equipment, and even lives, can be lost due to misbehaving equipment.

I guess this is a side note in some sense, but are we saying we want to get in
the business of making life/safety-grade protocols?

Section 3.1

   On the other end, the deterministic portion of a path may be a tunnel
   between and ingress and an egress router.  In any case, routers and
   switches in between should not need to be aware whether the path is
   end-to-end of a tunnel.

Nit: is that "of" or "or" in the last line?

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:33:43 +0000

Hello Benjamin;

[PT>] 
I think that the protocols and in particular deterministic properties are a needed ingredient in safety but not all of it. 
My understanding is that safety can only come from a validated solution as deployed.
So DetNet is a step towards making IP more applicable in safety solutions, but it does not provide any guarantee.
I'm not sure we should discuss/claim anything there, it could take us too far.

> Nit: is that "of" or "or" in the last line?
[PT>] It's an "or" : )

Many thanks again, Benjamin.

Pascal

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 04:56:18 -0600

> I'm not sure we should discuss/claim anything there, it could take us too far.

I agree we should not say anything here; I was just curious (hence "side
note").  And I also agree with your assessment :)

-Benjamin