Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-09

[Ballot comment]
Section 2
 
  Robustness is a common need for networking protocols, but plays a
  more important part in real-time control networks, where expensive
  equipment, and even lives, can be lost due to misbehaving equipment.

I guess this is a side note in some sense, but are we saying we want to get in
the business of making life/safety-grade protocols?

Section 3.1

  On the other end, the deterministic portion of a path may be a tunnel
  between and ingress and an egress router.  In any case, routers and
  switches in between should not need to be aware whether the path is
  end-to-end of a tunnel.

Nit: is that "of" or "or" in the last line?

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting Yes (and not NoObj) because I specifically *do* see archival value in this document (and use-case / problem-statement documents in general); when someone has to implement / deploy the technology, having them understand what problem it is supposed to solve (or what the use case is) is valuable...

I did have a few nits - they are purely editorial, and I'm only mentioning them because I noticed them, feel free to address or not.

1: Section 1.  Introduction
"While the initial user base has focused almost entirely on Ethernet
  physical media and Ethernet-based bridging protocol (from several
  Standards Development Organizations), the need for Layer-3 expressed
  above, must not be confined to Ethernet and Ethernet-like media, and
  while such media must be encompassed by any useful Deterministic
  Networking (DetNet) Architecture, cooperation between IETF and other
  SDOs must not be limited to IEEE or IEEE 802."
I found this sentence to be hard to parse / a run on -- the comma between above and must didn't help, but splitting it up into multiple sentences would sure make it easier to read.

2: "As a result of this work, it will be possible to establish a multi-hop path over the IP or MPLS network,"
The "will" in the above made me twitch -- I understand that that is the expected outcome / desire, but wording it as "will" seems like hubris.

3: "In other words, a Deterministic Network is
  backwards compatible with - capable of transporting - statistically
  multiplexed traffic while preserving the properties of the accepted
  deterministic flows."
The hyphens around "capable of transporting" confused me. Perhaps it was intended to be a parenthetical?

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting ABSTAIN, which does not block publication of this document. I agree with Mirja's first ballot point. Moreover, the document contains forward-looking statements that will presumably be overtaken by events in the near future, e.g. the statements about what the IETF will need to do in Section 1.

Nit:

Section 2 says: "Considerable experience ([ODVA]/[EIP],[AVnu], [Profinet],[HART],[IEC62439], [ISA100.11a] and [WirelessHART], etc...)"
 
It seems like the "etc." should be replaced with an enumerated list of citations, or a description of what the other experience is that isn't explicitly listed.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja's first ballot point. Moreover, the document contains forward-looking statements that will presumably be overtaken by events in the near future, e.g. the statements about what the IETF will need to do in Section 1.

Nit:

Section 2 says: "Considerable experience ([ODVA]/[EIP],[AVnu], [Profinet],[HART],[IEC62439], [ISA100.11a] and [WirelessHART], etc...)"
 
It seems like the "etc." should be replaced with an enumerated list of citations, or a description of what the other experience is that isn't explicitly listed.

[Ballot comment]
Given the close relationship between this document and draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases, I think that it would have been beneficial to produce a single document.  As it stands neither one normatively references the other.

draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-09 says it better:

  The Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
  [I-D.ietf-detnet-problem-statement] introduces Deterministic
  Networking, and Deterministic Networking Use Cases
  [I-D.ietf-detnet-use-cases] summarizes the need for it.

[Ballot comment]
I don't really see the archival value of this doc; it rather reads like an extended charter. However, that's not a reason to block publication, therefore I ballot abstain.

One comment on this text in section 3.3:
"indicate the flows and packet sequences in-band with the flows;"
I don't really understand why this is needed or where this requirement comes from. Is then assumption that in-ordered delivery is needed? However, why would packets be re-ordered in a detnet system? Also, not all flows might need ordered delivery; so that might be another flow characteristic which you may want to configure.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06, 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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-10-03):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Lou Berger , Janos Farkas , draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement@ietf.org, janos.farkas@ericsson.com, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Deterministic Networking Problem Statement) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-10-03. 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 paper documents the needs in various industries to establish
  multi-hop paths for characterized flows with deterministic
  properties.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

The intended status is Informational. This is the appropriate status because
of the contents of the document.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document summarizes the need for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
and describes the problems to be solved by DetNet. The document lists key
features to be provided by a DetNet network and collects main technical
components to be supported to achieve the goals of DetNet.

Working Group Summary

There is consensus in the WG to proceed with the publication of the
document as an Informational RFC.
This document is an important input to the work of the WG to guide the
solution documents.

Document Quality

It is a good quality document.
The Shepherd reviewed the latest version (-06) and found no issues.
The only item is that the abstract could be tuned up, e.g., replace
"This paper" with a more appropriate introduction.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: János Farkas
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 document has been reviewed by the WG. Comments were
submitted during WG Last Call. The authors updated the document
and addressed the comments. In addition to monitoring the discussions
on the list, the shepherd reviewed the document and provided comments
which have been also resolved during the updates.  The document is
ready for publication.

(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.

(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. The authors have been asked about IPR and they answered on the
WG list: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/detnet/current/msg01420.html

(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 disclosures have been submitted directly on
draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement.

(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? 

This draft has been reviewed by the WG and the WG agrees with it.

(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 https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No issues. There are three warnings for unused unused references.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes, all references are informative.

(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.

(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 5226).

No IANA actions are needed.

(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.

No IANA actions are needed.

(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, etc.

N/A