Subject: [Detnet-dp-dt] merged Tal's text into the master branch

From: "Jouni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 00:41:05 +0300

Folks,

I just merged Tal's edits to the master.

- Jouni

---

From: "Jouni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:11:37 +0300

Forgot to send a note earlier but I cannot make it today for a call.

The draft is getting into shape so unless there are bigger issues with the
rest of the DT folks, I think we are getting to a point where DT work has
been done and WG could take over. I still need to do the overall look over
the document so let me know if there are still places where you think there
is more technical (not plain editorial) work to do.

- Jouni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 00:41 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: merged Tal's text into the master branch
> 
> Folks,
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:01:34 +0200

Jouni,

Does this mean that the meeting is cancelled?

I agree that we should request working group adoption of the
document now.

/Loa

On 2017-06-13 14:11, Jouni wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Detnet-dp-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet-dp-dt
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:21:38 +0000

Hi Jouni / All,
I think we have reached a good and stable content of the draft.
No further editorial comments from my side.
Cheers
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jouni
Sent: 2017. június 13. 14:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] merged Tal's text into the master branch

The draft is getting into shape so unless there are bigger issues with the rest of the DT folks, I think we are getting to a point where DT work has been done and WG could take over. I still need to do the overall look over the document so let me know if there are still places where you think there is more technical (not plain editorial) work to do.

- Jouni

---

From: "Jouni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:29:01 +0300

Okay. I'll have one editorial round and then hand over the doc to WG chairs
for the next step.

- Jouni

> From: Balázs Varga A [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 16:22 PM
> To: Jouni <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Detnet-dp-dt] merged Tal's text into the master branch
> 
> Hi Jouni / All,
> the document so let me know if there are still places where you think
> there is more technical (not plain editorial) work to do.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
>

---

From: "Jouni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:29:42 +0300

OK. Let's move towards the WG adoption call.

- Jouni

> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa
> Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 16:02 PM
> I agree that we should request working group adoption of the document now.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> > The draft is getting into shape so unless there are bigger issues with
> > the rest of the DT folks, I think we are getting to a point where DT
> > work has been done and WG could take over. I still need to do the
> > overall look over the document so let me know if there are still
> > places where you think there is more technical (not plain editorial)
> work to do.
> >
> > - Jouni
> >
> >

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:07:52 -0400

H,

I just did a quick skim of the document solely from the QoS
perspective.  The document seems a bit light in this area -- and leaves
it to the reader to infer how DetNet QoS is provided.  What are your
thoughts on this section?  (Address it in the future, haven't thought
about it, etc.)

I think at least saying that QoS is expected to be provided by the
underlying network layers, specifically TE LSPs in MPLS and IP over
802.1 TSN.  I also think it would be appropriate to have (future)
subsections that detail service delivery considerations for each.  I
also expect that certain service levels of  "DetNet QoS" will require
additional capabilities from traditional MPLS TE traffic flow
descriptions. 

on a related topic, what document do you expect to contain the technical
specification of "DetNet QoS"?

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:19:00 +0200

Lou, et.al.,

For me this is pretty much a "address it in the future", and guess we
could add text now saying "that QoS is expected to be provided by the
underlying network layers, specifically TE LSPs in MPLS and IP over
802.1 TSN."

/Loa

--

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 05:48:51 -0400

Does future= next the of draft or next rev of DetNet in your opinion?

If the latter, we have a major disconnect  from the charter imo...

Lou

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:33:30 +0200

Lou,

I guess both the question and the answer was unclear, I assumed that
when you said "address it in the future" mean "address in a future
version of the draft". My intention was version -02 or -03 of the
working group document.

My rational was the I wanted to see if we had acceptance of what we
have done so far. If we have that I believe that the QoS text is
fairly straightforward, if there are (major) changes not so easy
(would require kind of a restart).

I've one other issue that has bothered me a bit the last days, we can
address this in the wg doc.

We say that we don't define OAM, but I assume that for OAM we will use
the GACh for the OAM protocols.
What I don't get my head around is if the replication and elimination
might cause problems when using the GACh.

Anyone that has an opinion?

/Loa

--

---

From: Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:30:53 +0000

Hi Lou / All,

What about to have a dedicated document? It could focus not only on QoS, but integrating underlaying 
network and data link layers.

As a starting point we have 
- Norm's presentation in Chicago:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/slides/slides-98-detnet-ieee-tsn-and-ietf-detnet-issues-00.pdf
- Annex 2 os service model draft "Integrating Layer 3 and Layer 2 QoS" 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varga-detnet-service-model-02#section-13

Cheers
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: 2017. június 14. 14:08
To: Jouni <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Detnet-dp-dt] merged Tal's text into the master branch

H,

I just did a quick skim of the document solely from the QoS perspective.  The document seems a bit light in this area -- and leaves it to the reader to infer how DetNet QoS is provided.  What are your thoughts on this section?  (Address it in the future, haven't thought about it, etc.)

I think at least saying that QoS is expected to be provided by the underlying network layers, specifically TE LSPs in MPLS and IP over
802.1 TSN.  I also think it would be appropriate to have (future) subsections that detail service delivery considerations for each.  I also expect that certain service levels of  "DetNet QoS" will require additional capabilities from traditional MPLS TE traffic flow descriptions. 

on a related topic, what document do you expect to contain the technical specification of "DetNet QoS"?

Thanks,
Lou

On 6/13/2017 10:29 AM, Jouni wrote:
>> From: Detnet-dp-dt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
>> Of Loa Andersson
>>> The draft is getting into shape so unless there are bigger issues 
>>> with the rest of the DT folks, I think we are getting to a point 
>>> where DT work has been done and WG could take over. I still need to 
>>> do the overall look over the document so let me know if there are 
>>> still places where you think there is more technical (not plain 
>>> editorial)
>> work to do.
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>