Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] call tomorrow

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:57:56 -0800

Folks,

For the call tomorrow we have the following agenda:
   * review where we are - there has been quite a few
     updates recently
   * look at the missing parts - specifically the
     MPLS section (started but we need to agree the
     direction I started to take with it)

- Jouni

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 18:21:29 -0500

Jouni,

>      direction I started to take with it)
There's quite a bit of text that can be adapted for this.  I'd
personally start with some text I'm familiar with (as I wrote a lot of
it) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5921#section-3.4 (skipping anything
control plane related, e.g., NNI and UNI)  and adapt it to be TP neutral
(TP->TE) -- this would cover the difference between transport, PW
adaptation and native adaptation.

There's even some OAM and QoS related text scattered in the document
that can be lifted.  More OAM text can be found at rfc6371 and linear
protection can be found at rfc6378. 

There's a fair bit of TE background out there: rfc3346 has a te
overview,  rfc3272 gives more detailed background, and of course there's
rfc3209 (which leads to intserv) for definition of QoS parameters.  RFC
6003 given more Ethernet centric QoS parameters (for use with MPLS data
plane, and GMPLS signaling).

I suspect that'll be a good bit of text...

Thoughts?

Lou

> - Jouni
>
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 00:01:10 +0000

Hi Jouni,
can we set some time tomorrow to discuss the two questions from my review:
*	can time synchronization requirement be fulfilled by comprehensive delay measurement, active and/or passive, that characterizes a DetNet flow;
*	can packet traceroute, as well, be fulfilled by active OAM traceroute that is guaranteed to fate share with, be in-band with a DetNet flow.
I think that depending on the outcome we may be able to update the list of requirements towards a data plane for DetNet.

	Regards,
		Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 2:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] call tomorrow

Folks,

- Jouni

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:02:35 -0800

Of course.

Jouni

Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos..

> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni,

---

From: Olivier Marce <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:21:53 +0100

Hi all
I will certainly not able to make the call this evening.

I was not involved in recent BIER discussion,  I support the points 
raised by Greg, the time synchronisation looks fundamental for me.
One of the question which is open in my mind is about the accuracy of 
such synchronization that is requested by DetNet.

Regards

-- 
Olivier Marcé
Nokia Bell Labs France