Subject: [Detnet] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 16:46:04 -0800

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: 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-tsn-vpn-over-mpls/

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

[[ comments ]]

* I know that RFC 8964 doesn't have any text about MTU and fragmentation
  considerations, but RFC 3985 does.

  The layering diagram in section 4.2 made me thing it might be worth
  either adding some text or pointing to some text elsewhere that
  advises the DetNet network operator to make sure that all the DetNet
  encapsulation overhead plus the MTU of the TSN not exceed the DetNet
  network's MTU, otherwise fragmentation considerations arise.

  Even a reference to RFC 3985 section 5.3 might be enough to remind the
  reader of these additional considerations.

---

From: Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:48:09 +0000

Hi Erik,

Many thanks for your review.
Proposal regarding your comments is below.

Thanks
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 1:46 AM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Lou Berger <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls-06: (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.)

[[ comments ]]

<Bala'zs> Yes, a note is definitely worth to add (to the end of section 4.2). 
NEW TEXT 
  Note: In order to avoid fragmentation (see section 5.3 of [RFC3985]), 
  the network operator has to make sure that all the DetNet encapsulation 
  overhead plus the TSN App-flow do not exceed the DetNet network's MTU.
END

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:36:55 -0800

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls/

Sounds good, thank you!