Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08

Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:06:16 +0000

Robert: thank you very much for your review – I have balloted No Objection, with a comment about the intended status of this document since I agree with you, it is not completely clear to me right
 now the motivation behind this track. I do not consider this a blocking point, and might just be missing discussion that has happened previously (or after your review) in the WG, but I’ll double check.

Authors: thanks for addressing Robert’s points.
Francesca

From: last-call <last-call-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mohammadpour Ehsan <ehsan.mohammadpour=40epfl.ch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wednesday, 16 February 2022 at 10:49

To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: art@xxxxxxxx <art@xxxxxxxx>, detnet@xxxxxxxx <detnet@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency.all@xxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-08

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:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09.html  

as well as the difference between the new version and the previous version in:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-detnet-bounded-latency-09 

Best,

Ehsan

--

Ehsan Mohammadpour

PhD candidate at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)

IC IINFCOM, LCA2, INF 011, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

https://people.epfl.ch/ehsan.mohammadpour

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.