Hi Balázs,
Thanks for the clarification.
I think it might be good if you can provide simple texts in the draft to provide these info for references.
--Yoshi
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:10 AM Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Yoshi,
Many thanks for the review.
Regarding your comment on "conflict of the flow ID or wrap-around of the sequence number".
Yes, these are important aspects in DetNet.
Yes, flow ID must be unique in order to identify packets belonging to the DetNet flow.
This must be ensured by the control and/or management plane. DetNet WG was re-chartered
recently to focus on these planes as well. In data plane drafts we have dedicated a section
to collect " Controller Plane (Management and Control) Considerations".
Regarding sequence number, wrap-around events are flow characteristics and network
dependent. The data plane technology specific documents ensures that the sequence number
space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight ( see Section 4.1. and 4.2..1 in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls ).
I hope that clarifies your comments.
Many Thanks
Bala'zs
-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:58 AM
To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-04
Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
Review result: Ready with Nits
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
Summary: Ready with Nits.
This document is well-written as an informational RFC. I don't see any technical issues related to transport, but it might be better to clarify the following minor point.
The draft allows DetNet data plane to carry flow ID and sequence number as metadata. But, aren't there any potential risks for the conflict of the flow ID or wrap-around of the sequence number? (especially for explicit case) It might be better to state which module should care if it's out of scope for the draft or to clarify there is no risk against them.
Thanks,
--
Yoshi
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
