Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 09)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)|
|Requested by||Deborah Brungard|
|Draft last updated||2018-09-30|
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Ines Robles
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Prep for IETF Last Call.
|Reviewed rev.||06 (document currently at 09)|
|Review result||Has Nits|
Hello I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-foo-name/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. <case 1> As this document has recently been adopted by the working group, my focus for the review is on providing a new perspective on the work, with the intention of catching any issues early on in the document's life cycle. <case 2> As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. <case 3> If neither of the above describes the circumstances of the review, then write a brief summary of the reasons for and purpose of the review here (get this from the WG chair if you are not sure). For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 2018-09-30 Intended Status: Informational Summary: I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and clear to understand. The document describes the needs in various industries to establish multi-hop paths for characterized flows with deterministic properties. This document is basically ready for publication, but I have some minor questions that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. Comments: 1)- In section 1 you mention: "....a new model must be proposed to integrate determinism in IT technology..." Do you think it is useful to mention draft-ietf-detnet-architecture as a starting point for the model? 2)- In Section 1: "the model should not compromise the ability of a network to keep carrying the sorts of traffic that is already carried today in conjunction with new, more deterministic flows.", and in Section 2 "The goals of Deterministic Networking (DetNet) are .... and to support both these new applications, and existing packet network applications, over the same physical network." Those sentences seems to be related with Interoperability, but Interoperability is not explicitly mentioned in the document. Do you think that it should be? 3)- In Section 2: "Multiple methods to schedule, shape, limit, and otherwise control the transmission of critical packets at each hop through the network data plane;" Do you think that it would be good to add something like: "Detnet is working on IP Data Plane Encapsulation [ref.] and on MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation [ref]?" 4)- In Section 2: "Robust defenses against misbehaving hosts, routers, or bridges,both in the data and control planes...." Do you think that it would be good to add here or in the security considerations section (maybe better) a reference to draft-ietf-detnet-security? Nits: It would be nice to expand DetNet in Section 1, since it is the first time that it is mentioned. Thanks for this document, Ines.