Subject: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06

From: Niklas Widell via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:06:03 -0800

Reviewer: Niklas Widell
Review result: Ready with Nits

I have reviewed  draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn from IoT point of view, as part
of IoT directorate document reviews.

The document specifies the DetNet IP data plane when operating on a TSN
sub-network, and builds on RFC8939 and RFC8565 to do so.

The document is well-written and appears to be Ready (with some minor nits).

I did not identify any IoT related issues with the document.

Nits:

-  RFC8939 reference does not render as link in section 1, first paragraph, but
works in the second paragraph. In section 3 again no link.

- Section 1, third paragraph: This sentence is strange: "As described in
[RFC8939] no DetNet specific headers are added to support DetNet IP flows, only
the forwarding sub-layer functions are supported inside the DetNet domain."

- section 2.2. Abbreviations DF and PREOF not used in rest of document.

- general, mix of using L2 and Layer-2

- general, there are some long, complex to parse, sentences that could perhaps
be split or rephrased into something clearer. E.g. 4.2, third paragraph, "In
cases of TSN-unaware IP DetNet nodes the TSN relay nodes within the TSN
sub-network must modify the Ethernet encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g.,
MAC translation, VLAN-ID setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow
proper TSN specific handling inside the sub-network."

- general, IEEE specs are referred to as "IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]", which
makes the many references to clauses long to read. Can't you just say e.g.,
"Clause 6.6 of [IEEE8021CB]" instead of ""Clause 6.6 of IEEE8021CB
[IEEE8021CB]", except for maybe the first reference?

---

From: Balázs Varga A <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:34:29 +0000

Hi Niklas,

Many thanks for your review and comments.
Please see proposed changes inline.

Thanks
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: Niklas Widell via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 5:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06

Reviewer: Niklas Widell

I have reviewed  draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn from IoT point of view, as part of IoT directorate document reviews.

The document specifies the DetNet IP data plane when operating on a TSN sub-network, and builds on RFC8939 and RFC8565 to do so.

Nits:

-  RFC8939 reference does not render as link in section 1, first paragraph, but works in the second paragraph. In section 3 again no link.
<Bala'zs> Reference seems to work now.

- Section 1, third paragraph: This sentence is strange: "As described in [RFC8939] no DetNet specific headers are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are supported inside the DetNet domain."
<Bala'zs> OK. I will separate sentences. Proposed change.
OLD TEXT
   As described in [RFC8939] no DetNet specific headers are added to 
   support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions 
   are supported inside the DetNet domain.
NEW TEXT
   As described in [RFC8939] no DetNet specific headers are added to 
   support DetNet IP flows. Only the forwarding sub-layer functions 
   are supported inside the DetNet IP domain.
END

- section 2.2. Abbreviations DF and PREOF not used in rest of document.
<Bala'zs> OK, I will fix this.

- general, mix of using L2 and Layer-2
<Bala'zs> OK, I will fix this.

- general, there are some long, complex to parse, sentences that could perhaps be split or rephrased into something clearer. E.g. 4.2, third paragraph, "In cases of TSN-unaware IP DetNet nodes the TSN relay nodes within the TSN sub-network must modify the Ethernet encapsulation of the DetNet IP flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID setting, Sequence number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific handling inside the sub-network."
<Bala'zs> OK, I will discuss with native speaker co-authors.

- general, IEEE specs are referred to as "IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]", which makes the many references to clauses long to read. Can't you just say e.g., "Clause 6.6 of [IEEE8021CB]" instead of ""Clause 6.6 of IEEE8021CB [IEEE8021CB]", except for maybe the first reference?
<Bala'zs> OK, I will fix this.