Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-06-02
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-05-05
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 |
2021-03-15
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2021-03-11
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-03-11
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Kathleen Moriarty was marked no-response |
2021-02-25
|
07 | Wesley Eddy | Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Overtaken by Events' |
2021-02-23
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2021-02-22
|
07 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2021-02-22
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2021-02-22
|
07 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2021-02-22
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2021-02-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2021-02-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2021-02-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2021-02-22
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2021-02-19
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was changed |
2021-02-19
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2021-02-19
|
07 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-07.txt |
2021-02-19
|
07 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2021-02-19
|
07 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Thank you for documenting some of the concerns and considerations related to mapping management information between the Detnet and TSN management models. Rob |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Roman's comment is a good one. Section 1 As described in … [Ballot comment] Roman's comment is a good one. Section 1 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. [...] nit: I suggest "so only the forwarding sub-layer functions can be supported inside the DetNet domain". Section 4.2 A TSN-aware IP (DetNet) node implementations must support the Stream nit: singular/plural mismatch "A TSN-aware IP"/"implementations" Section 4.4 Implementations of this document shall use management and control information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream. N:1 mapping (aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) shall be supported. I note that in draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls this was a normative "SHALL be supported" (which was itself the strongest criterion I could find for that document being standards-track). Is there a simple description for what's different between these documents? Section 9.2 I agree with the other ADs that (most of?) the IEEE references should be classified as normative. |
2021-02-18
|
06 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I also concur with Alvaro's observations. |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I agree with Alvaro's ballot points. I think IEEEP8021CBcv should also be a normative reference. = Abstract = "Whenever this document makes … [Ballot comment] I agree with Alvaro's ballot points. I think IEEEP8021CBcv should also be a normative reference. = Abstract = "Whenever this document makes requirements statements or recommendations, these are taken from normative text in the referenced RFCs." I found the use of "requirements statements" a little misleading since this document contains no normative language. = Section 4 = "The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and bounded latency in bridged networks." Since this is going into an immutable RFC, starting with "At the time of this writing" or some such would be helpful. = Section 5 = "Mapping between DetNet IP flow(s) (as flow identification defined in [RFC8939], it is summarized in Section 5.1 of that document, and includes all wildcards, port ranges and the ability to ignore specific IP fields) and TSN Stream(s) (as stream identification information defined in [IEEE8021CB] and [IEEEP8021CBdb])." This is wordy and therefore hard to parse in the context of the bulleted list. It would be clearer if it were broken up into multiple sentences. |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] As noted in the abstract, “[t]his document does not define new procedures or processes.” Since Sections 1 – 5 appears to be primarily … [Ballot comment] As noted in the abstract, “[t]his document does not define new procedures or processes.” Since Sections 1 – 5 appears to be primarily annotated references to TSN citations, I was surprised that the Security Considerations did not follow the same pattern. I would have expected pointers into the underlying IEEE TSN specifications on security considerations. The text appears to be generic, and beyond a single sentence, identical to draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn. |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Special thanks to Niklas and Tim for their directorates reviews as well to Balázs … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Special thanks to Niklas and Tim for their directorates reviews as well to Balázs for his answer: - IoT directorate: Niklas Widell https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06-iotdir-telechat-widell-2021-02-15/ - INT directorate: Tim Chown https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05-intdir-telechat-chown-2021-02-14/ I only did a quick review of the document as I am trusting those two reviews for my ballot and I am sure that they helped to improve the document, Regards -éric |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | Ballot comment text updated for Éric Vyncke |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Special thanks to Niklas and Tim for their directorates reviews as well to Balázs … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. Special thanks to Niklas and Tim for their directorates reviews as well to Balázs for his answer: - IoT directorate: Niklas Widell https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06-iotdir-telechat-widell-2021-02-15/ - INT directorate: Tim Chown https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05-intdir-telechat-chown-2021-02-14/ I am trusting those two reviews for my ballot and I am sure that they helped to improve the document, Regards -éric |
2021-02-17
|
06 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2021-02-16
|
06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] From an email exchange: """ There is always a similar interworking pair at the other end of the Stream and it restores the … [Ballot comment] From an email exchange: """ There is always a similar interworking pair at the other end of the Stream and it restores the packet to its original destination MAC address and VLAN. Therefore, there is no impact to IP and IP-related traffic that might carry MAC addresses, like ARP or NDP. """ |
2021-02-16
|
06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Erik Kline has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2021-02-16
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] The following references should be Normative: I-D.ietf-detnet-security, IEEE8021CB, IEEE8021Q, IEEEP8021CBdb, and RFC8655. Some of these references describe TSN, an understanding which … [Ballot comment] The following references should be Normative: I-D.ietf-detnet-security, IEEE8021CB, IEEE8021Q, IEEEP8021CBdb, and RFC8655. Some of these references describe TSN, an understanding which is required. Others represent the architecture and security considerations for DetNet -- note that other data plane documents use them normatively as well. ==== For the record (no need to reply) I'm having a hard time convincing myself that this document has archival value as an RFC, given that the procedures are already specified in the IEEE documents. I had a similar concern (related to the contributions made in the document) about draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls (which is on the Standards Track). As with the MPLS document, I am making this a non-blocking comment and not opposing the publication. |
2021-02-16
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2021-02-15
|
06 | Niklas Widell | Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Niklas Widell. Sent review to list. |
2021-02-14
|
06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot discuss] [[ discuss ]] [ section 4.1 ] * I haven't tried to read the IEEE documents referenced here, but I'm hoping this … [Ballot discuss] [[ discuss ]] [ section 4.1 ] * I haven't tried to read the IEEE documents referenced here, but I'm hoping this question can be easily addressed by those who have. Can this Destination MAC rewriting ("replace ... with alternate values") ever affect IP and IP-related traffic that might carry MAC addresses, like ARP or NDP? If there could be impact to MAC-carrying traffic like ARP/NDP then it seems likely that more text is required here about that interaction (and I should probably figure out how to go read those references documents/clauses). |
2021-02-14
|
06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "is used to provides" -> "is used to provide" [ section 3 ] * "due … [Ballot comment] [[ nits ]] [ section 1 ] * "is used to provides" -> "is used to provide" [ section 3 ] * "due the lack" -> "due to the lack" |
2021-02-14
|
06 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2021-02-14
|
06 | Tim Chown | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Tim Chown. Sent review to list. |
2021-02-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2021-02-12
|
06 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-06.txt |
2021-02-12
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2021-02-12
|
06 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-09
|
05 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2021-02-09
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2021-02-09
|
05 | Bernie Volz | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2021-02-08
|
05 | Ines Robles | Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Niklas Widell |
2021-02-08
|
05 | Ines Robles | Request for Telechat review by IOTDIR is assigned to Niklas Widell |
2021-02-08
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by IOTDIR |
2021-02-08
|
05 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2021-02-18 |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot has been issued |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Created "Approve" ballot |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2021-02-05
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was changed |
2021-02-05
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2021-02-04
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2021-02-04
|
05 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2021-02-04
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. Sent review to list. |
2021-02-03
|
05 | Paul Kyzivat | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat. |
2021-01-28
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2021-01-28
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Paul Kyzivat |
2021-01-28
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Ian Swett |
2021-01-28
|
05 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Ian Swett |
2021-01-26
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2021-01-26
|
05 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2021-01-24
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2021-01-24
|
05 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Kathleen Moriarty |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Lou Berger , db3546@att.com, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-02-05): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Lou Berger , db3546@att.com, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet) to consider the following document: - 'DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN)' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-02-05. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the Deterministic Networking IP data plane when operating over a TSN sub-network. This document does not define new procedures or processes. Whenever this document makes requirements statements or recommendations, these are taken from normative text in the referenced RFCs. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2021-01-22
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
2021-01-18
|
05 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Russ White. |
2021-01-12
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2021-01-12
|
05 | Luc André Burdet | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Russ White |
2021-01-04
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2021-01-04
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. > This … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. > This version is dated 1 November 2019. > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is > this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title > page header? This is an Informational RFC that describes how other standards documents can be combined. No new mechanisms or recommendations are defined. > Technical Summary: > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or > introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that > there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document describes how the Deterministic Networking IP data plane can operate over a TSN sub-network data plane. This document does not define new procedures or processes. > Working Group Summary: > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was > there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing notable. > Document Quality: > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant > number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? > Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a > thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a > MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its > course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was > the request posted? The document is an Informational document. Early implementations of IP over DetNet were demonstrated by WG members. > Personnel: > Who is the Document Shepherd? Lou Berger > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard > (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by > the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for > publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the > IESG. The Shepherd reviewed this document as it progressed through the WG as well as part of Last Call. All significant comments have been resolved. > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No > (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from > broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, > DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took > place. No. > (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd > has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the > IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable > with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really > is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and > has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. No concerns, assuming published as Informational. > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 > and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/tddrU04N0JdW2qUgX0-MerAdizQ/ > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If > so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. No IPR has been disclosed. > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being > silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I think the document has good support from a narrow set of WG participants. > (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate > email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a > separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. No. > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. Idnits issues have been fixed. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type > reviews. N/A. > (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either > normative or informative? Yes. > (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for > advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative > references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. > (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? > If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in > the Last Call procedure. No. > (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing > RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the > abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed > in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of > the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs > is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why > the WG considers it unnecessary. No, N/A. > (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations > section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the > document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes > are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA > registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been > clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a > detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that > allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a > reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No requests are made in the document. > (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future > allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful > in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. > (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document > Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal > language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, > etc. N/A > (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked > with any of the recommended validation tools > (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and > formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, > what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the > YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture > (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? There are no yang models. |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2020-12-22
|
05 | Lou Berger | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. > This … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. > This version is dated 1 November 2019. > (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, > Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is > this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title > page header? This is an Informational RFC that describes how other standards documents can be combined. No new mechanisms or recommendations are defined. > Technical Summary: > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or > introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that > there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document describes how the Deterministic Networking IP data plane can operate over a TSN sub-network data plane. This document does not define new procedures or processes. > Working Group Summary: > > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was > there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where > the consensus was particularly rough? Nothing notable. > Document Quality: > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant > number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? > Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a > thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a > MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its > course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was > the request posted? The document is an Informational document. Early implementations of IP over DetNet were demonstrated by WG members. > Personnel: > Who is the Document Shepherd? Lou Berger > Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard > (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by > the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for > publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the > IESG. The Shepherd reviewed this document as it progressed through the WG as well as part of Last Call. All significant comments have been resolved. > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No > (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from > broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, > DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took > place. No. > (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd > has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the > IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable > with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really > is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and > has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. No concerns, assuming published as Informational. > (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR > disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 > and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/tddrU04N0JdW2qUgX0-MerAdizQ/ > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If > so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. No IPR has been disclosed. > (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being > silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I think the document has good support from a narrow set of WG participants. > (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate > email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a > separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. No. > (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this > document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts > Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be > thorough. Idnits issues have been fixed. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type > reviews. N/A. > (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either > normative or informative? Yes. > (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for > advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative > references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. > (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? > If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in > the Last Call procedure. No. > (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing > RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the > abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed > in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of > the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs > is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why > the WG considers it unnecessary. No, N/A. > (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations > section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the > document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes > are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA > registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been > clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a > detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that > allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a > reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126). No requests are made in the document. > (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future > allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful > in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. > (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document > Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal > language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, > etc. N/A > (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked > with any of the recommended validation tools > (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and > formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, > what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the > YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture > (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342? There are no yang models. |
2020-12-13
|
05 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05.txt |
2020-12-13
|
05 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2020-12-13
|
05 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2020-11-02
|
04 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-04.txt |
2020-11-02
|
04 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Balazs Varga) |
2020-11-02
|
04 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-04
|
03 | Lou Berger | See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/P511wVAYonvwXOER7bXtKXUORm8/ |
2020-09-04
|
03 | Lou Berger | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-08-14
|
03 | Lou Berger | all responses received Janos Farkas: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/GCo3Lzuv9j7Db6lCJ7AlNmXN8-U/ Balázs Varga A: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/RED5xqo1KeBisRW4SXlaXdhVt6M/ |
2020-08-08
|
03 | Lou Berger | IP Call: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/tddrU04N0JdW2qUgX0-MerAdizQ/ Andy Malis: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/0PPOXJyQcf30l0u8cqM2wLMnz3I/ Stewart Bryant: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/P7lQ4deEzWjm_qhV_KFPT2T9MX0/ Missing: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com janos.farkas@ericsson.com |
2020-08-08
|
03 | Lou Berger | Notification list changed to Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> |
2020-08-08
|
03 | Lou Berger | Document shepherd changed to Lou Berger |
2020-06-08
|
03 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-03.txt |
2020-06-08
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-08
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Janos Farkas , Andrew Malis , Stewart Bryant , Balazs Varga |
2020-06-08
|
03 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-06
|
02 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-02.txt |
2020-03-06
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-06
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Janos Farkas , Stewart Bryant , Andrew Malis |
2020-03-06
|
02 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-01.txt |
2019-10-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Balazs Varga , Stewart Bryant , Janos Farkas , Jouni Korhonen , Andrew Malis , detnet-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-06
|
00 | Balazs Varga | New version available: draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-00.txt |
2019-05-06
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-05-05
|
00 | Balazs Varga | Set submitter to "Balázs Varga ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: detnet-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-05-05
|
00 | Balazs Varga | Uploaded new revision |