Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-02-22
Requested 2024-02-09
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Andrew G. Malis
I-D last updated 2024-02-15
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -08 by Olivier Bonaventure (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tatuya Jinmei
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-02-15
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
<draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-09.txt>. These comments were written
primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO

This document is generally well-written, and it provides a straightforward
solution to the stated motivation (specifying the encoding of sequence
information in DetNet IP packets). To the extent of my limited understanding of
DetNet and related technologies, I've not found any issue.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

I have a few comments that might help improve readability of the document.

- Introduction:

   The DetNet Working Group has defined Packet Replication (PRF), Packet
   Elimination (PEF) and Packet Ordering (POF) functions to provide
   service protection by the DetNet service sub-layer [RFC8655].  The
   PREOF service protection method relies on copies of the same packet

  I'd suggest updating the first sentence to, e.g., "...functions (correctly
  represented as PREOF)...", so that readers won't be puzzled about the acronym
  when they read the second sentence. (abstract defines the term, but I think
  it's better if the main text is more self-contained).

- Section 4.1, Figure 2: what "d-CW" stands for is explained in Section 4.2,
but not here or before. It's more reader friendly to note it when it first

- Section 4.4: it may be more reader friendly to explain what PW stands for
   In the first case, the different DetNet PWs use the same UDP tunnel,

  perhaps it's obvious for readers with sufficient background, but this
  document generally seems to expand many acronyms, so it would be more

- Section 4.6 and Figure 5: the purpose of this section and the figure is not
clear to me. Do we need this section at all?