Hi Pete, Thank you very much for your review input. As editor of this draft, here are my comments, questions and some proposed resolutions. Please let me know what you think.
1. Abstract: OK, I will look at streamlining it, one way or another. 2. Sec 2.1.4 (deterministic time to start streaming): I agree that keeping some things for historical context is useful, and I did not remove the section entirely for exactly that reason; I was attempting to keep the general topic but just refer to the earlier draft for additional info, which the reader could look up if they were interested. The downside of this approach is that such text can't be formally referenced. In this case I still think this is appropriate - do you know of other reasons why you don't think this approach is sufficient in this case? Having said all that, I wouldn't mind putting back the supporting text, in addition to the "out of scope" message, if you feel that would be worthwhile. 3. Use of "we": Good point, I agree and will review that voicing throughout the draft. The reason it came about was that the original framing of the draft was "what does your industry want from DetNet", and each use case was written by a team from that industry. So the "we" isn't exactly "DetNet" it is more like "the proponents of this specific use case". But still I agree that "we" should be expunged. 4. microseconds: OK, I will replace use of "usec" or "us" with "µsec". 5. Relation to NTP: From the DetNet perspective timekeeping is considered part of network implementation and is not specified by DetNet. The fact that the Utilities use case mentions PTP at all, leave alone not mentioning NTP, is incidental to that use case. So I would not be inclined to change anything here, but if anyone else wants to chime in, please do. 6. Security: Individual use cases may make some reference to the security implications of their particular use case, but this list of use cases is by no means exhaustive; there will inevitably be new ones. I note that you appreciate including security considerations in separate sections :- ) but thus far we have opted to gather the DetNet security considerations into a separate draft that applies to DetNet networks in aggregate; if you haven't already, please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-security/. Regarding specific security considerations for each use case (e.g. Mining) my take (as editor of the DetNet Security draft) is that security design is part of the overall network design, and that the DetNet Security draft attempts to address only the aspects of network security that are specific to time sensitive IP based networks, which might be "new" to IP based network designers, and thus might not be addressed elsewhere. I don't feel that requiring the use case authors to each contribute a thorough security discussion for their application seems appropriate, but that's just my take. 7. Grammar: Each use case was contributed by a different group of authors, with widely varying writing styles. As editor I attempted to clarify the intended meaning, which it seems per your comment that I did succeed in doing, however I didn't attempt to fix every grammatical issue. Sometimes this was due to my concern about inadvertently changing the meaning of the statements, sometimes I just decided to leave in place the original author's wording and style if it didn't materially compromise comprehension. I am not sure what the RFC Editor would do with this material, and I'm not sure to what extent I should make another pass at "fixing grammar" rather than leaving it to the RFC Editor, if they are going to take that on. I'm open to input on this. Thanks again for your valuable review input, and please let me know if the above resolutions make sense to you. Best, Ethan (as editor of the DetNet Use Cases draft). -----Original Message----- From: Pete Resnick <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 11:02 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2018-10-04 IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-03 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with Nits This was a really cool document to read simply because of the breadth of the industries involved. It clearly is going to need a good grammatical editing pass by the RFC Editor, but none of the errors are the kind that make the text hard to understand. All of my comments below are editorial in nature. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: For all of the below, the world does not end if you don't fix them, but please consider: ---- Abstract: The first paragraph of intro seems like a better abstract. I don't think the abstract needs as much detail as you've got in there. ---- The Intro says: For DetNet, use cases explicitly do not define requirements; The DetNet WG will consider the use cases, decide which elements are in scope for DetNet, and the results will be incorporated into future drafts. Then why was 2.1.4 removed? It seems like it might be useful for historical context. ---- In general, I don't like using "we" in consensus documents because it makes it ambiguous whether the "we" is the "the author(s), "the detnet WG"", "the IETF", or "this document". Additionally, using phrases like "we believe" or "we think" are superfluous in most cases. Search for " we" and think about how to get rid of such uses. A few examples: 2.2 I think you can simply just delete "we believe that". This document is making a statement; no reason to hedge. 4.3 "In the future we expect". Changing to the passive voice solves the problem: "It is expected that in the future" 5.3.2.1 "We would like to see DetNet define such a protocol". Detnet is the author of this document, so "we" here seems really weird. There are many other examples. Doing a search for " we " and seeing if you can clean them up would be useful. ---- Throughout 3.1.1, 6.1.2, 7.3, 7.4: I presume "###us" is meant to be "###µs". I believe I-Ds are now allowed to have such characters. ---- In 3.3.2.3, there is no discussion about how this relates to NTP. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but it seems odd for an IETF document. ---- I like that you have security considerations sprinkled throughout the document instead of trying to combine them into one big section. However, some of the sections are missing security considerations. For example, I think even I could come up with some security considerations for the mining industry case. SECDIR might have more to say, but I think it's worth adding these. ---- The FQDN idnit is because of Juergen Schmitt's email address, and it is fine. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
