Hi, I have following clarification questions/comments about the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-05 document
a) Section 3. "Examples of a physical link are: Lambda, Ethernet PHY, and OTN". Should "OTN" be "OTU"? Furthermore, can a "component link" be formed by set of Lambda? b) Section 4.1. In the context of "FR#1" from end-to-end perspective, should there be some sort of network scale related requirement(s)? For example, max number of pair of nodes connected via composite links traversed etc. If this aspect is covered somewhere a reference should be added. c) Section 4.2, "Communication of other performance parameters (e.g., delay variation) is desirable" seems to contradict "FR#17" in section 4.3. d) Section 4.2, FR#8" appears to use "latency" in the end-to-end sense. While the next requirement "FR#9" appears to refer to this term only between two nodes. I think, it would helpful to clarify the usage of term "latency" e.g., what component of a node transit delay it excludes or includes. Or add a reference to a document if this is covered in some other document. e) General comment section 4.3. "Many techniques have been developed to balance the distribution of flows across component links that connect the same pair of nodes" and "...via composite links, other techniques have been developed." It would good to add a reference(s) for each. f) Section 4.3, "FR#12" is about latency while the example "...a user experience objective (e.g. jitter buffer under/overrun)" appears to refer to delay variation. I think, the example should be consistent with the requirement. g) Section 4.3, "FR#17". It is not clear why the delay variation is considered in this context. Reading this requirement, one gets the impression as if the composite link delay has two components (delay and delay variation). I had understood that delay variation (contributed through the nodal switching/queuing delays) is not considered in this document. h) DR#6, a minor typo "Solution" should be "solution"? Thanks, Iftekhar "As was discussed in yesterday's rtgwg meeting, there are three composite link drafts: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 You can read the slides I presented on these drafts at https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-rtgwg-3.pdf (it's a quick read!). As Alia said, you are all requested to read and comment on these drafts. In about a month's time, we will be requesting WG adoption of draft-so and draft-symmvo, and it'll be great to have an informed discussion at that time. Thanks much, Andy"
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
