Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2020-03-13
Requested 2020-02-28
Authors Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Lou Berger , Andrew G. Malis , Stewart Bryant
Draft last updated 2020-04-07
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoshifumi Nishida
State Completed
Review review-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04-tsvart-lc-nishida-2020-04-07
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2020-04-07
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: Ready with Nits.

This document is well-written as an informational RFC. I don't see any
technical issues related to transport, but it might be better to clarify the
following minor point.

The draft allows DetNet data plane to carry flow ID and sequence number as
metadata. But, aren't there any potential risks for the conflict of the flow ID
or wrap-around of the sequence number? (especially for explicit case) It might
be better to state which module should care if it's out of scope for the draft
or to clarify there is no risk against them.