WG ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=detnet
Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/detnet/about/
17:00 - 19:00 Local - (22:00 - 00:00 UTC)
Room: Van Horne --
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/floor-plan?room=van-horne
Time zone converter:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20251103T220000&p1=165
Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/session/detnet
Note taking: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-124-detnet?both
Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf124/?session=34751
Onsite tool: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/onsite124/?session=34751
Audio stream: https://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf124/34751.m3u
Chat: https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/detnet
ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/session/34751.ics
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgEJ83dSInU
Session recording:
https://meetecho-player.ietf.org/playout/?session=IETF124-DETNET-20251103-2200
Presenter: Chairs
Slide 10: RAW framework and OAM documents status - the issue isn't lack
of interest, but rather the need for updated documents. Chairs will
confirm plan on the list, if no response, will remove from the
Milestones and consider the documents Dead.
Polls for all queuing documents:
1) have you read this draft
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#) solution
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy/04
Presenter: Jinoo Joung
Lou Berger: WRT Slide 3: To be clear, when brought up on the list only
talking about bullet #2 (interoperability of solutions with each other).
Lou Berger: Good to get those changes out. Helpful to get the new
version to be able to read the specifics.
Jinoo Joung: Will do.
Shaofu Peng: Slide 5, would like to discuss off-line the offset
definition.
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-joung-detnet-stateless-fair-queuing/05
Presenter: Jinoo Joung
Shaofu Peng: Can you add more detail on the reference topology?
Jinoo Joung: Will do in the Taxonomy draft, though not appropriate in
the simulation text. Not valuable enough to put in the Cisco draft
itself. But open to other suggestions, perhaps as an Appendix.
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#3)?
even number of read/not read - less than 1/2 the room
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#3) solution?
more say yes than who answered have read.
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-deadline-based-forwarding/18
Presenter: Shaofu Peng / Peng Liu
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#4)?
also an equal split, about the same number of readers as previous poll; not high participation with either draft (nor the poll).
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#4) solution?
here too, more saying yes than have read the draft, participation a little higher.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-detnet-packet-timeslot-mechanism/13
Presenter: Shaofu Peng / Peng Liu
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#5)?
most participation on this poll, a few more have read.
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#5) solution?
fewer people saying yes than have read the documents. nothing materially different between each of the polls.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-detnet-tcqf/09
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckert-detnet-glbf/05
Presenter: Toerless Eckert
Presenting two solutions: TCQF and gLBF.
Jinoo Joung: gLBF category 6.5, non-periodic. TCQF is 6.3 because cyclic based?
Suitable category has 2 solutions, yours and Shaofu's.
Toerless Eckert: Let's take it to the list.
Shaofu Peng: [having audio issues] Have sent mail to the list, please answer there
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#6a - tcqf)?
Similar results, slightly smaller
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#6a - tcqf) solution?
smaller number or respondents, but with some support.
1) have you read this draft (#6b - glbf)?
notably more have not read
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#6b - glbf) solution?
very small number responding, no real information from poll.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryoo-detnet-ontime-forwarding/04
Presenter: 유연철 Yeoncheol Ryoo
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#7)?
even fewer have read the draft
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#7) solution?
about the same number who have read and they are saying we should work on. Too few to gauge any result
Shaofu Peng: Same question from last meeting. This solutions seems to lack the mathematical formula. How to ensure transmission guarantees?
Will send to the list again.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ryoo-detnet-nscore/02
Presenter: 유연철 Yeoncheol Ryoo
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#8)?
small number of readers
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#8) solution?
similar numbers saying we should work on
Shaofu Peng: Better to add more description for the simulation topology evaluation to understand how the solution works.
Lou Berger: Please read all the documents, not just the ones you are interested in so you can have an informed opinion. Then, as group, we have to decide how many of the solutions we adopt and whether adopt multiple in the same categories. Please also check for gaps in the documents. For example, for me personally, I don't understand enough of how some of these solutions work with competing traffic flows flows and different traffic types. I need to go check the topology to see if it is sufficient to cover such information, and if not suggest improvements.
Each of us should read the documents to see where might be gaps in the information that we want to be able to decide.
Janos Farkas: Encourage and second what Lou said. Please read all the proposals on the table, in order that the group can make a solid decision on which ones to adopt.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiong-detnet-flow-aggregation/03
Presenter: Tianji Jiang
POLLS:
1) have you read this draft (#9)?
less than a third of the room has read the document
2) do you think the WG should be working on this (#9) topic?
re interest in bringing this into the WG as a WG document, seeing no objections, but again a smaller number of the room participating
Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-han-detnet-anomalous-packets-handling/01
Presenter: Jinjie Yan 阎金洁 (Remote)
Janos Farkas (speaking as an individual providing feedback): Most aspects are not anomalies. Problems listed look like inappropriate engineering causes these problems.
Jinoo Joung: Similar opinion as Janos. Anomaly defined here is normal behavior of the 3G node. If you define some packet behavior/anomaly, is that the fault of the flows? I don't think so.
David Black: Wonder about the generality of this? Saw references to time slots that imply that these are restricted to the periodic mechanisms.
Lou Berger: Really appreciate new contributions - thank you for your efforts. Call out these types of normal behaviors in the taxonomy draft to ensure they are not forgetten about.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bernardos-detnet-multi-domain-pce/00
Presenter: Carlos Bernardos
Lou Berger: want to formally poll if there is interest in multi-domain.
POLL: Completely independent of solution, are you interested in working on the multi-domain problem? Interest in working on this topic, and no objections.
Carlos Bernardos: we're focused on topic more than specific solution.
Lou Berger: Said PCE rather than Controller. So this seems narrower than just general topic.
Toerless Eckert: The WG has too much on its plate, WG should focus on single domain. Is there really a need?
Carlos Bernardos: We have had industry asking for multi-domain, e.g., factory environments, as well as deployment in research contexts.
Lou Berger: Although we may not be ready for adoption just yet, there are a good number of people interested in the work, so please continue.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-varga-detnet-srv6-data-plane/02
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-redundancy-protection/05
Presenter: Balázs Varga
Lou Berger: Last meeting we talked about coordinating with SPRING folks. They meet tomorrow, so please show up there. Heads up for ADs, we need to continue to coordinate.
Lou Berger: Thank you all for a successful session. Will move rapidly to adoption of several documents. Will see you at IETF 125.
Janos Farkas: Thank You!
Adjourn: 19:00