Flow and Service Information Model for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-14

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. From a purist point of view, I appreciate to see this document being published as "informational" and *before* the data models.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

In general and may be I missed it, but I see no relationships between the three information models (app/flow/service) and relationships among entities are also quite an important part of information models.

-- Title --
The title is only about "flow" but the abstract and content are about "flow and services". Strongly suggest to update the title.

-- Section 1 --
Should "IP 6-tuple" have a reference? I guess that this is about the common 5-tuple + DSCP but a definition will be welcome (or add a reference to section 5.4.2)

Adding a reference to IEEE 802.1 TSN ?

-- Section 1.1 --
I am puzzled by this sentence "herefore, the DetNet flow and service information models described in this document are based on [IEEE8021Qcc]"... Does one information model supersede or contradict the other one ? Else, why redo the work at the IETF? It is partially answered in section 1.2 but still unclear to me.

-- Section 5.2 --
Is the list strictly limited to Ethernet, MPLS, and IP ?

-- Section 6.3.3 --
Isn't the word 'jitter' more common than 'Maximum Latency Variation' ?

-- Section 6.3.5 & 6.3.6 --
Missing the unit ?


== NITS ==

-- Section 2.3 --
To respect the convention of the previous sentence, I would have expected that "SourceMacAddress" would be written as "SourceMACAddress" as "MAC" is an acronym ;-)

-- Section 5 --
s/with fix packet size/with fixed packet size/ ?

-- Section 5.1 --
s/many to one/n:1/ to be consistent ?

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Roman about consistently (not) specifying units.

Section 5.6

Please expand "UNI".

Section 5.9.4

Where is PLR precisely defined?

Section 5.9.6, 6.3.6

Over what time interval is the misordering tolerance measured/applied?

Section 7

I'm not sure what sense the word "applied" (in "applied from the user of
the DeNetService") is being used.  The sentences would parse more easily
if it was supposed to be "supplied", but I'm not 100% that's the
intended meaning.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.  I found it pretty easy to read/follow, although the relationship between this document and the YANG configuration data model could perhaps be more clear in sections 1.1 and 1.2.  I.e. my interpretation is that this document is not defining a configuration information model because a configuration data mode (in YANG) is being defined instead.  In addition to that, the YANG configuration data model will also make use of some of the characteristics of the flow and service information models.  Is my interpretation correct?  If so, perhaps the text could be tweaked to make this a bit more explicit?

Otherwise, I only had a couple of minor comments:

(1) I would suggest that the summary section could probably be removed since the document doesn't really need it.  Particularly, if the relationship between the information model and YANG data model is further clarified in the introduction/goals/non-goals.

(2) In the introduction, the start of paragraph 4 ("In the IETF DetNet service ..."), doesn't scan for me, and perhaps should be rephrased.

Thanks,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Shawn Emery for the SECDIR review, and thank you for responding to it.

** Editorially, the style by which info model elements are described is different in Section 4 vs. 5.

** Editorially, the level of detail provided for the information elements seems vary a bit.  For example, Section 5.5a describes a time interval in the with Interval attribute of TrafficSpecification but provides no data type of units.  On the other hand, Section 5.9.2 describes MaxLatency as being an integer (data type) and unit (nanoseconds).

** Section 7.  What is an “information group”?

** Section 10
  The external interfaces of the DetNet domain need to be subject to
  appropriate confidentiality.  Additionally, knowledge of which flows/
  services are provided to a customer or delivered by a network
  operator may supply information that can be used in a variety of
  security attacks.  Security considerations for DetNet are described
  in detail in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].  General security
  considerations are described in [RFC8655].  This document discusses
  modeling the information, not how it is exchanged.

-- Please clarify what is “appropriate confidentiality” and who determines that?

-- I didn’t follow why the external interface is such a key focus given the contents of the detnet-security draft.

Perhaps something more streamline as (roughly) the following could work if that meets the original intent:

NEW (Section 10)
This document describes an information model intended to principally describe network configuration information.  Knowledge of which flows or services are provided to a customer or delivered by a network operator can inform a variety of attacks. 

This information model will be instantiated with implementation level details in a data model.  Such data models (e.g., draft-ietf-detnet-yang) will need to address the security considerations for DetNet which are described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security].  General security considerations are described in [RFC8655].

[Ballot comment]
In Section 1, I don't understand what the paragraph starting "In the IETF ..." means, because of those three words.  Is it different outside of the IETF?

Section 5.4.2:
OLD:
    Using wild cards for these attributes are specified ...
NEW:
    Use of wild cards for these attributes is specified ...

[Ballot discuss]
Secs 5.9.6 defines Maximum Reordering Tolerance with an example: "The difference of sequence number values in
  consecutive packets at the Egress cannot be bigger than
  "MaxMisordering + 1"."

While this definition is actionable, it interacts uncomfortably with Maximum Consecutive Loss. If MCL < MRT, there are cases where it will violate MRT but not MCL, which would subvert the usually understood meaning of reordering.

Moreover, if MaxMisordering is 3, the sequence 6, 4, 0 would not trigger this definition even though there is very significant reordering here.

A better example would be "When a packet arrives at the egress after a packet with a higher sequence number, the difference between the sequence number values cannot be bigger than
  "MaxMisordering + 1"."

[Ballot comment]
Sec 1. s/rational/rationale

Sec 1.2 and 1.3. What is the difference between the "flow information model" that is stated goal and the "flow data model" that is a stated non-goal?

Sec 5.5 Octets/second seems like a very odd unit for Max/Min Payload size. This should either be Octets, or the metric should be renamed Max/Min Payload Rate, or something to that effect.

Sec 5.5. the section says a lot about violations of the minimum, but not the maximum. This approach seems inconsistent.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-09-11):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, detnet@ietf.org, Lou Berger
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DetNet Flow Information Model) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Deterministic Networking WG (detnet)
to consider the following document: - 'DetNet Flow Information Model'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-09-11. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes flow and service information model for
  Deterministic Networking (DetNet).  These models are defined for IP
  and MPLS DetNet data planes




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

> This version is dated 1 November 2019.

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:


> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document provides context for the DetNet Data Plane and DetNet
managment YANG model.  It has helped guide the development of other WG
documents, but does not defined any protocol or wire formats.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> Technical Summary:


> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
> introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
> there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document describes flow and service information model for
  Deterministic Networking (DetNet).  These models are defined for IP
  and MPLS DetNet data planes

> Working Group Summary:


> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
> there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing particular worth noting.

> Document Quality:

> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
> number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
> Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
> thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
> MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
> course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was
> the request posted?

The document is one of the foundation documents for other DetNet WG
activities.  It has been used to help produce the data plane definition
documents, including those that have been submitted for publication. It
has also been used to help shape the DetNet YANG model that is being
produced by the WG.

> Personnel:

>  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard


> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
> publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
> IESG.

I have reread this document as it progressed as well as in its final
form.  All significant comments have been addressed. The document is
ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
> place.

No.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No concerns.  This document is ready to be published.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

yes Authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/29DTTkx2lvj2x_0OMoAnM-FDTJI/


> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No IPR

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
> silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?


Very solid.  The document is mature and has been discussed sufficiently.
It was not published earlier in order to ensure that this document was
aligned with other WG documents. Those documents have progressed to the
point that publications of this document now makes sense.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

identified IDnits have been addressed. (Some false reports may remain.)

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
> reviews.

N/A

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
> normative or informative?

Yes

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No, N/A.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.

No

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
> RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
> abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
> in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
> the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
> is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
> the WG considers it unnecessary.

No, N/A.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
> registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
> clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
> in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules,
> etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
> with any of the recommended validation tools
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
> what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
> YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.

> This version is dated 1 November 2019.

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:


> Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document provides context for the DetNet Data Plane and DetNet
managment YANG model.  It has helped guide the development of other WG
documents, but does not defined any protocol or wire formats.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

> Technical Summary:


> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
> introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that
> there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document describes flow and service information model for
  Deterministic Networking (DetNet).  These models are defined for IP
  and MPLS DetNet data planes

> Working Group Summary:


> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was
> there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

Nothing particular worth noting.

> Document Quality:

> Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
> number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
> Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
> thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
> MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its
> course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was
> the request posted?

The document is one of the foundation documents for other DetNet WG
activities.  It has been used to help produce the data plane definition
documents, including those that have been submitted for publication. It
has also been used to help shape the DetNet YANG model that is being
produced by the WG.

> Personnel:

>  Who is the Document Shepherd?
Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Deborah Brungard


> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
> publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
> IESG.

I have reread this document as it progressed as well as in its final
form.  All significant comments have been addressed. The document is
ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
> place.

No.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No concerns.  This document is ready to be published.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

yes Authors/contributors know of none, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/29DTTkx2lvj2x_0OMoAnM-FDTJI/


> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
> so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No IPR

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being
> silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?


Very solid.  The document is mature and has been discussed sufficiently.
It was not published earlier in order to ensure that this document was
aligned with other WG documents. Those documents have progressed to the
point that publications of this document now makes sense.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

identified IDnits have been addressed. (Some false reports may remain.)

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type
> reviews.

N/A

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
> normative or informative?

Yes

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No, N/A.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.

No

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
> RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
> abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
> in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
> the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
> is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
> the WG considers it unnecessary.

No, N/A.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
> registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
> clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

N/A

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
> in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules,
> etc.

The only automated review was idnits.

> (20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked
> with any of the recommended validation tools
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
> what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
> YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

N/A.