|
Dear Robert Sparks,
Thank you for your comments. We modified the draft to address your comments; specifically,
It's not clear to me who this document is intended to inform. While reasonably
written, it feels more like part of a larger discussion without pointers to
that discussion, and I'm not seeing the utility of publishing it in the RFC
series as it is currently framed. I don't _object_ to it's publication, but
please consider if the purpose and audience could be made more clear.
We modified the abstract to better explain the purpose and audience of the Bounded Latency draft.
I find the division of Normative/Informative references suspect. In particular,
please reconsider whether the IEEE references, particularly IEEE802.1Q-2018
should be normative.
We moved the citation IEEE802.1Q-2018 to the Normative references in the new version of the draft.
The document uses AVB as an acronym for (I think) A vs B, but that
three-letter-acronym is already well used in this space (even in other detnet
documents) to mean Audio Video Bridge. Is this collision necessary?
We understand the confusion and modified the text at the beginning of Section 6.4.
At section 7, "application of this document" is unclear. Consider expanding
what you mean to say. I think you mean something like "an example use of the
models in this document to inform the admission of a detnet flow”?
We corrected it in the new version of the draft.
Finally, you can find the new version of the draft in:
as well as the difference between the new version and the previous version in:
Best,
Ehsan
On 6 Feb 2022, at 21:40, Robert Sparks via Datatracker < noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Issues
This is an artart Last Call review of draft-ietf-detndet-bounded-latency-08
This document is Mostly Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but
there are some issues to consider before publication.
It's not clear to me who this document is intended to inform. While reasonably
written, it feels more like part of a larger discussion without pointers to
that discussion, and I'm not seeing the utility of publishing it in the RFC
series as it is currently framed. I don't _object_ to it's publication, but
please consider if the purpose and audience could be made more clear.
I find the division of Normative/Informative references suspect. In particular,
please reconsider whether the IEEE references, particularly IEEE802.1Q-2018
should be normative.
The document uses AVB as an acronym for (I think) A vs B, but that
three-letter-acronym is already well used in this space (even in other detnet
documents) to mean Audio Video Bridge. Is this collision necessary?
At section 7, "application of this document" is unclear. Consider expanding
what you mean to say. I think you mean something like "an example use of the
models in this document to inform the admission of a detnet flow"?
I support Ralf Weber's comments.
|
