Deterministic Networking
charter-ietf-detnet-04

As first noted by Alvaro, the work scope of “vertical requirements” seems unbounded.

(1) Given the close relationship with IEEE, I think we need external review.


(2) "identify the appropriate Working Group"  

This phrase shows up a couple of times.  I was first worried that it was meant as a means for the WG to simply decide which WG (including itself) would do the work, but now I think it is meant as a dispatch-like function: "we need this work done, WG x seems like the right place."  Is my interpretation correct?  Please try to clarify so that there is no confusion later...maybe something along the lines of "the work will be done in the WG responsible for the technology".


(3) Is the intent to publish the "vertical requirements" documents as RFCs?  Just wondering because it sounds like an open-ended effort.  Suggestion: if appropriate, scope the documents to industries that have new requirements which have not been addressed already.


(4) s/OSPF, IS-IS/LSR


(5) Milestones would be nice.

I share Álvaro’s concern about the vertical industries.

I don't particularly mind the "vertical requirements" bit; "cannot be 
supported using defined DetNet solutions" does serve to limit scope.

I do think that clarity around "identify the appropriate WG" would be good,
though.

A couple nits:

     Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS, and
     related OAM, to support a data plane method of flow identification
     and packet forwarding over Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane
     technologies may also be used.

nit: "IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM, [...] Other IETF defined data plane
technologies" is a somewhat awkward construction.

     Controller Plane: This work will document how to use IETF control
     plane solutions to support DetNet. This work includes identification
     of any gaps in existing solutions and identifying the appropriate
     Working Group for any needed extensions.

nit: maybe "for developing"?

I share some of Alvaro's concern regarding the dispatching. I think the requirements angle is also interesting here. I fully expect DETNET to produce reasonable requirements on for example a transport protocol as perceived from the DETNET WGs. After a suitable WG has been identified I would expect that significant discussion over these requirements, likely resulting i changes, would occur. I hope this view is shared, but the usage of the word define, could be interpret as a bit more strict than what I expect was the intention here.

Sorry for the late review, but if OAM is in scope, the WG should also coordinate with IPPM.

Is it clear how the "Data flow information model" will be defined?  Is the plan for this to be done using an adhoc format, or a specific information modelling language such as UML?  Should this be specified in the charter text at all?