Subject: [Detnet] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 03:25:50 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-13: 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-flow-information-model/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. From a purist point of view, I
appreciate to see this document being published as "informational" and *before*
the data models.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

In general and may be I missed it, but I see no relationships between the three
information models (app/flow/service) and relationships among entities are also
quite an important part of information models.

-- Title --
The title is only about "flow" but the abstract and content are about "flow and
services". Strongly suggest to update the title.

-- Section 1 --
Should "IP 6-tuple" have a reference? I guess that this is about the common
5-tuple + DSCP but a definition will be welcome (or add a reference to section
5.4.2)

Adding a reference to IEEE 802.1 TSN ?

-- Section 1.1 --
I am puzzled by this sentence "herefore, the DetNet flow and service
information models described in this document are based on [IEEE8021Qcc]"...
Does one information model supersede or contradict the other one ? Else, why
redo the work at the IETF? It is partially answered in section 1.2 but still
unclear to me.

-- Section 5.2 --
Is the list strictly limited to Ethernet, MPLS, and IP ?

-- Section 6.3.3 --
Isn't the word 'jitter' more common than 'Maximum Latency Variation' ?

-- Section 6.3.5 & 6.3.6 --
Missing the unit ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 2.3 --
To respect the convention of the previous sentence, I would have expected that
"SourceMacAddress" would be written as "SourceMACAddress" as "MAC" is an
acronym ;-)

-- Section 5 --
s/with fix packet size/with fixed packet size/ ?

-- Section 5.1 --
s/many to one/n:1/ to be consistent ?