Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:39:21 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/

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

I don't particularly mind the "vertical requirements" bit; "cannot be
supported using defined DetNet solutions" does serve to limit scope.

I do think that clarity around "identify the appropriate WG" would be good,
though.

A couple nits:

     Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS, and
     related OAM, to support a data plane method of flow identification
     and packet forwarding over Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane
     technologies may also be used.

nit: "IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM, [...] Other IETF defined data plane
technologies" is a somewhat awkward construction.

     Controller Plane: This work will document how to use IETF control
     plane solutions to support DetNet. This work includes identification
     of any gaps in existing solutions and identifying the appropriate
     Working Group for any needed extensions.

nit: maybe "for developing"?

---

From: Janos Farkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:31:17 +0000

Hi Benjamin,

Thank you for your review!

Please see in line.

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 8:39 AM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Detnet] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-detnet-01-00: (with COMMENT)

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.)

I don't particularly mind the "vertical requirements" bit; "cannot be supported using defined DetNet solutions" does serve to limit scope.

I do think that clarity around "identify the appropriate WG" would be good, though.

[Janos Farkas] 
I hope the updated text is clearer:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IfEJfMaLP79ar0Cc0d6hzL75HlA/ 

A couple nits:

nit: "IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM, [...] Other IETF defined data plane technologies" is a somewhat awkward construction.

[Janos Farkas] 
To be honest, I have not idea how to improve, what change to make.

This part has been updated:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IfEJfMaLP79ar0Cc0d6hzL75HlA/

Best regards,
Janos

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:30:12 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-detnet/

It is; thanks!

> To be honest, I have not idea how to improve, what change to make.

I don't have a good idea, either.  The most promising approach is to try to
make a single list, "how to use IP, MPLS, other IETF-defined data plane
technologies, and/or related OAM, to support [...]" but I suspect that
loses some of the intended emphasis on which methods are preferred.  It's
okay to just leave this as-is, I think.

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/IfEJfMaLP79ar0Cc0d6hzL75HlA/

Indeed, this comment is overtaken by events.

Thanks,

Ben