Re: [Last-Call] [Detnet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Tim,

Many thanks for the review and the nits.
Updates will be done according to comments added inline.

Thanks
Bala'zs

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet <detnet-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Tim Chown via Datatracker
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 4:22 PM
To: int-dir@xxxxxxxx
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [Detnet] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05

Reviewer: Tim Chown
Review result: Ready with Nits

Hi,

Re: INT-DIR review of draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-05

This draft details how a DetNet IP data plane can run over a TSN sub-network.

I have reviewed this document and believe it is Ready for publication, with Nits.  Note I am not overly familiar with specifics of the DetNet architecture.
There are some hopefully simple questions that might be addressed and some minor editorial nits as detailed below.

Nits:

p.2
Expand TSN on first use, rather than on page 4.
<Bala'zs> Ack.

p.3
Is “6-tuple” well-defined?  Perhaps expand for clarity.
<Bala'zs> 6-tuple is defined in detail in rfc8939 (it is referred in this document).

p.4
Is there a specific reason to show a multi-homed TSN node?
Are there implications if it is multi homed in TSN but not IP?
<Bala'zs> No specific reasons, just shows that "TSN-aware Talker" nodes may be multi-homed.
No implications if multi-homed in TSN but not in IP, that is a valid TSN-aware Talker scenario.

p.5
Not being familiar with DetNet in detail it might be useful to expand on the rationale for mapping to multicast given the statement that the flow is “directed”.
<Bala'zs> OK. It is quite usual to use multicast addresses for TSN Streams. And they are "directed" within the TSN sub-network.

p.6
covers required -> covers the required
I note it says there are no requirements stated for TSN-unaware nodes in the document, but is it worth adding something about requirements to ensure the TSN Relay can be reached?
<Bala'zs> Text change is OK. In case of TSN-unaware nodes, reaching the TSN relay is a task for the TSN sub-network. :--))

p.7
Implementations must -> implementation must (twice) FRER function -> The FRER function
<Bala'zs> OK.

p.8
of the document -> of this document
challanges -> challenges
Are member -=> are members
<Bala'zs> OK.

p.9
In some case -> in some cases
<Bala'zs> OK.

--
Tim


_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
detnet@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux