Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11
Yes
Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Jim Guichard
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
Yes
John Scudder
Yes
Comment
(2024-02-21 for -10)
Not sent
Thanks for this well-written document. Thanks also to Roman for serving a special guest AD. I have one question. In section 4.3, you have "Service-ID values are provisioned per DetNet service via configuration, i.e., via the Controller Plane". Later, in section 5, you have "This information is provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration, e.g., via the controller plane." Are the respective usages of "i.e." and "e.g." deliberate? That is, is your intent that in section 4.3, service-ID values should be provided provision only via the controller plane, but in section 5 you intend that Control and Management Plane Parameters can be configured any way, and the controller plane is merely an example? (My rule of thumb is that i.e. should be read as "in other words", and e.g. should be read as "for example".)
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2024-02-28)
Sent
Thank you for this document - I found it a fascinating read! Also, much thanks to Carlos Pignataro for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2023-12-23/), and to Bala'zs for following up and addressing the comments.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment
(2024-02-27)
Sent
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the TSVART review. This document is reusing RFC9025 which confirms with the BCP145, hence no objection from using UDP as encapsulation layer. However, I am not sure why this is an informational document. what was the reasoning behind it?
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2024-02-21 for -10)
Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-10 Thank you for the work put into this document. I always find DetNet work interesting and useful. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Lou Berger for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status (the latter could have been more detailed tough). Other thanks to Tatuya Jinmei, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2024-02-15/ (thanks to Balázs for his reply) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Is MPLS over UDP the only solution ? While using MPLS over UDP is indeed a valid solution for sequencing the packets, I wonder whether RFC 8939 could have been updated/extended to also add ordering, this would probably have less overhead. Was this discussed in the WG? If so, why not adding this justification in the draft ? (note I may have missed something obvious :-O ) ## Section 5 `IPv6 next header field set to "UDP"` seems to ignore the optional extension headers between the IPv6 header and the UDP header. The wording in `IPv6 next header field set to "UDP"` seems to indicate an action "to set" rather than "being equal to" (as suggested by the leading `The information needed to identify individual`). Suggest to clarify. I am most probably missing something obvious here but does this section assumes that the only DetNet flows are UDP ? # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ## Section 1 Unsure whether 'correctly' is sensible in `correctly represented as PREOF`. Unsure whether the reference to a YANG model is useful in the same 1st paragraph.
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2024-02-26)
Not sent
Thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the TSVART review.