# Minutes for the DetNet 109 WG Session Please help capture the discussion in-line below. No need to cover what is on the slides, just the discussion. Please also (optionally) add your name here: ### Note takers: Ethan Grossman ### Session 1: Thursday Session II 14:30-15:30 (ICT, UTC+7) -- 07:30-08:30 (UTC) Time Zone Converter: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20201119T073000&p1=1440&p2=tz_ict Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/session/detnet Note taking: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-109-detnet Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf109/?group=detnet&short=&item=1 Audio stream: http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf109/detnet/1.m3u Jabber: http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/detnet WG ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=detnet Session ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/session/28350.ics Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMcJ8m9xwc4 ## Presentation Start Time (UTC +7) Duration Information ### 1 14:30 10 Title: Intro, WG Status, Draft Status > Presenter: Chairs Loa Anderson: Will IETF 111 be online also? Janos Farkas: No announcement about that yet. ### 2 14:40 10 Title: DetNet Configuration YANG Model > Presenter: Don Fedyk > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-yang-08 Lou Berger: Mentioned consistency with terminology and naming - what is your strategy on terminology? Did you introduce new terms, e.g., upper on slide 6? Don Fedyk: Hopefully did not introduce new term. Introduced upper to show when aggregating at various layers, new with this version, not sure if it will stick, has not gone through comment review. Lou Berger: Any new terminology should be reviewed on list. Xuesong Geng: Not trying to introduce new terminology - all will align with previous data plane docs. This is just to make YANG model more easy to understand, e.g. aggregation. Details about aggregation and examples could be found in the notes from the interim that we had in October about YANG model and there are detailed introduction of this part. If you are interested, Please give us any further comments. ### 3 14:50 5 Title: Bounded Latency > Presenter: Jiayi Zhang > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-02 Lou Berger: a reasonable number Janos Farkas: Any objection to WG last call? Xuesong Geng: Document is in good shape. And it great to see the update of simplifying the shaping mechanism since it's not done a lot in IETF. Janos Farkas: Sounds like a good move to go to last call, Chairs will discuss this with the authors. ### 4 14:55 10 Title: Micro-burst Decreasing in Layer3 Network for Low-Latency Traffic > Presenter: Zongpeng Du > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-du-detnet-layer3-low-latency-01 Lou Berger: You mention that DetNet is targeted for Campus? We have not seen that scope. DetNet is scoped for "single administrative domain" which could be small or large. Zongpeng Du: Maybe a misunderstanding? TSN is not designed for large scale network? Lou Berger: Yes TSN is more narrow scope but DetNet scope is not based on size of network, it is about having single domain of control. Janos Farkas: Agree with Lou that our charter says single administrative control. So ISP network is in scope. Campus is just an example. Need to clarify this in the draft. Balazs Varga: What is the cost of eliminating these microbursts? It will cause jitter for DetNet flows? Zongpeng Du: TSN will handle microburst but is costly. Our purpose is to address micro burst at a lower cost. Balazs Varga: Need offline discussion on the details. Lou Berger: There is a lot more in this presentation than is in the draft. We look forward to seeing more details in the draft. It looks like you are going towards an informational document not standards track. We can determine this as we see more information in the draft. ### 5 15:05 10 Title: OAM For DetNet > Presenter: Greg Mirsky > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-theoleyre-detnet-oam-support-00 Balazs Varga: I support the proposed use of MEP, MIP terminology. What I miss from this doc is providing basis for OAM framework; in DetNet we define 2 sublayers, Service and Forwarding - it would be great to have thoughts on where to place MEPs and MIPs in these sublayers. May provide insight to IP- and MPLS- specific OAM drafts. Show of hands poll on how many have read draft: Raised: 10 Not Raised: 8 Participants: 73 Xuesong Geng: This draft seems similar to your previous OAM document in RAW - what is relation with this work and that? Greg Mirsky: Idea is that the RAW OAM document will be RAW specific, but reference this doc for more general OAM framework aspects. As we discussed and agreed, DetNet is less technology exposed so better place for common OAM framework, with specifics (e.g. which is inband vs outofband in wireless vs wired networks) deferred to e.g. RAW which is technology specific. Lou Berger: Please send comments to the list, particularly if object to adoption. ### 6 15:15 10 Title: DetNet Control Plane Signaling > Presenter: Dirk Trossen > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trossen-detnet-control-signaling-00 Lou Berger: We are very short of time today. Suggest that we have an interim in December to discuss this further. ### 7 15:25 5 Title: Segment Routing for Redundancy Protection > Presenter: Fan Yang > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection-00 Janos Farkas: We have started coordinating between DetNet and SPRING chairs on this topic, as was discussed at last IETF. SPRING is the home for SRv6. Fan Yang: We will keep this work between the two groups. Janos Farkas: Any further thoughts? (None) We are over time, closing session. Will continue on list, and work on an interim to progress new work items. Thanks for contributions and keeping in touch online. ### Adjourn 15:30