Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06
review-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-09-30-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-problem-statement
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-10-05
Requested 2018-09-18
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Comments
Prep for IETF Last Call.
Review State Completed
Reviewer Ines Robles
Review review-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-09-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/hb-Y5IRpdtaD_yON7FrpLQXvLl4
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-09-30
Review completed: 2018-09-30

Review
review-ietf-detnet-problem-statement-06-rtgdir-lc-robles-2018-09-30

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.