Subject: [Detnet] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:05:17 -0800

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-07: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm balloting Yes (and not NoObj) because I specifically *do* see archival
value in this document (and use-case / problem-statement documents in general);
when someone has to implement / deploy the technology, having them understand
what problem it is supposed to solve (or what the use case is) is valuable...

I did have a few nits - they are purely editorial, and I'm only mentioning them
because I noticed them, feel free to address or not.

1: Section 1.  Introduction
"While the initial user base has focused almost entirely on Ethernet
   physical media and Ethernet-based bridging protocol (from several
   Standards Development Organizations), the need for Layer-3 expressed
   above, must not be confined to Ethernet and Ethernet-like media, and
   while such media must be encompassed by any useful Deterministic
   Networking (DetNet) Architecture, cooperation between IETF and other
   SDOs must not be limited to IEEE or IEEE 802."
I found this sentence to be hard to parse / a run on -- the comma between above
and must didn't help, but splitting it up into multiple sentences would sure
make it easier to read.

2: "As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multi-hop path
over the IP or MPLS network," The "will" in the above made me twitch -- I
understand that that is the expected outcome / desire, but wording it as "will"
seems like hubris.

3: "In other words, a Deterministic Network is
   backwards compatible with - capable of transporting - statistically
   multiplexed traffic while preserving the properties of the accepted
   deterministic flows."
The hyphens around "capable of transporting" confused me. Perhaps it was
intended to be a parenthetical?

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:46:45 +0000

Hello Warren;

Many thanks for your review : )

Let's see below:

> I'm balloting Yes (and not NoObj) because I specifically *do* see archival value

> in this document (and use-case / problem-statement documents in general);

> when someone has to implement / deploy the technology, having them

> understand what problem it is supposed to solve (or what the use case is) is

> valuable...

> I found this sentence to be hard to parse / a run on -- the comma between

> above and must didn't help, but splitting it up into multiple sentences would

> sure make it easier to read.

[PT>] sure

> 2: "As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multi-hop path over

> the IP or MPLS network," The "will" in the above made me twitch -- I

> seems like hubris.

[PT>]  Yes, we were optimistic, but we are getting there! What about:

   A desirable outcome of the work is the capability to establish a
   multi-hop path over the IP or MPLS network, for a particular flow
   with given timing and precise throughput …

[PT>] Yes, I can replace with parenthesis, no problem.

Many thanks  again, Warren!

Pascal

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:40:29 -0800

> Many thanks for your review : )

... and thanks for not getting irritated by the nits :-)

> > sure make it easier to read.
Thanks!

> *[PT>] * Yes, we were optimistic, but we are getting there! What about:
>
>
>
Perfect.

> *[PT>] *Yes, I can replace with parenthesis, no problem.
>
>
>

Win. Thanks.

Nah, thank you.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf