Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] Packet "loss protection" vs "replication and elimination" aka "what" vs "how"

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:03:15 -0400

I know time is short, so I want to bring up specific discussion topics
individually.

I've made this point before, and I think we're largely in sync with it
at a conceptual level but not at a documentation level. 

>From a service and architecture standpoint applications care that they
are provided a certain loss threshold and not so much about how that
low/no loss is achieved.  To support this, I think our service and
architecture discussions should:

- 1st talk about the service being delivered, which I'm referring to as 
"loss protection" -- but open on this, and

- 2nd talk about "replication and elimination" as the initial (or as an
example in the architecture doc) method being used to provide a
requested service level.

Does this make sense?

Lou

I'm working on edits to the dp doc now and will then move on to the arch
doc.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:07:45 -0400

Woops, looks like the DP doc is already using  "DetNet Reliability"  (in
place of "loss protection") but the eneral comment applies:

"DetNet Reliability" = service being delivered

"replication and elimination" = the initial (or as an example in the
architecture doc) method

Lou
On 7/7/2016 12:03 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

---

From: Pat Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0700

I agree with the principle.

Loss protection would be more specific than DetNet Reliability. There are
lots of types of reliability. DetNet Reliability is okay since we can
define what that means but I have a mild preference for loss protection as
it makes the type of reliability more obvious without definition.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:47:46 -0400

Thanks Pat. I'm okay with either "DetNet Reliability" or "DetNet Loss
Protection"...

On 7/7/2016 1:40 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:
> Loss protection would be more specific than DetNet Reliability. There
> are lots of types of reliability. DetNet Reliability is okay since we
> can define what that means but I have a mild preference for loss
> protection as it makes the type of reliability more obvious without
> definition.
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     > [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:53:36 +0000

Hello Lou

I tried to illustrate the service being delivered as pointed by the method(s) for getting there in a summary picture.

Can that become useful?

   OAM ------------------------------------------> Service Assurance (loss protection)
                                       \
                                        ---------> Traceability

                                        ---------> Duplicate Elimination
                                       /
   Flow  ----- Packet Sequencing -----
   Identification                      \
                                        ---------> In-Order Delivery
                                       /
   TimeStamping ---------------------------------> Jitter Elimination
                                       \
                                        ---------> Obsolete Elimination

                      Figure 3: DetNet Service Layer

                 Clock Synchronization, Precision Time

  ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------ - ------

                    -------- Pinned Path ------------> 0 congestion loss (loss protection)

                  /

  Flow Awareness ----------- Duplication  -----------> Remerge

                  \                              /

                    -------- Balancing   -------

                    \

                      ----- Packet Shaping ----------> flow isolation

                     Figure 4: DetNet Transport Layer

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou

> Berger

> Sent: jeudi 7 juillet 2016 19:48

> To: Pat Thaler <[email-masked]>

> Cc: [email-masked]

> Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] Packet "loss protection" vs "replication and

> elimination" aka "what" vs "how"

> >     Woops, looks like the DP doc is already using  "DetNet

> >     Reliability"  (in

> >     > I know time is short, so I want to bring up specific discussion

> >     topics

> >     > I've made this point before, and I think we're largely in sync

> >     with it

> >     > >From a service and architecture standpoint applications care

> >     that they

> >     > - 1st talk about the service being delivered, which I'm

> >     referring to as

> >     > - 2nd talk about "replication and elimination" as the initial

> >     (or as an

> >     > I'm working on edits to the dp doc now and will then move on to

> >     the arch

> >     > [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>

> >     [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]>

> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>