| rfc9912.original.xml | rfc9912.xml | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?> | <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> | |||
| <!-- Compiles with XML2RFC v3 https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc-dev | <!DOCTYPE rfc [ | |||
| .cgi --> | <!ENTITY nbsp " "> | |||
| <!ENTITY zwsp "​"> | ||||
| <!ENTITY nbhy "‑"> | ||||
| <!ENTITY wj "⁠"> | ||||
| ]> | ||||
| <?rfc toc="yes"?> | <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="info" docName="draft-i | |||
| <?rfc tocompact="yes"?> | etf-raw-architecture-30" number="9912" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902" update | |||
| <?rfc tocdepth="3"?> | s="" tocInclude="true" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" version= | |||
| <?rfc tocindent="yes"?> | "3" sortRefs="false" symRefs="true"> | |||
| <?rfc symrefs="yes"?> | ||||
| <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> | ||||
| <?rfc comments="yes"?> | ||||
| <?rfc inline="yes"?> | ||||
| <?rfc compact="no"?> | ||||
| <?rfc subcompact="no"?> | ||||
| <?rfc authorship="yes"?> | ||||
| <?rfc tocappendix="yes"?> | ||||
| <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="info" docName="draft-i | ||||
| etf-raw-architecture-30" | ||||
| ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" | ||||
| xml:lang="en" version="3"> | ||||
| <front> | ||||
| <title abbrev="RAW Architecture">Reliable and Available Wireless | ||||
| Architecture</title> | ||||
| <author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert' role='editor | <front> | |||
| '> | ||||
| <organization abbrev=''>Without Affiliation</organization> | <!-- [rfced] *AD, Janos Farkas (document shepherd) sent an email to the RPC on | |||
| <address> | 2026 Jan 16 saying that the [6TiSCH-ARCHI] should be moved from the | |||
| <postal> | normative references section to the informative references section. We | |||
| <city>Roquefort-les-Pins</city> | made this change, but please review and let us know if you approve. We | |||
| <code>06330</code> | consider changes to normative references to be "beyond editorial". | |||
| <country>France</country> | --> | |||
| </postal> | ||||
| <email>pascal.thubert@gmail.com</email> | <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as | |||
| </address> | follows. We have added the abbreviation "RAW" to align with the title of | |||
| </author> | draft-ietf-raw-technologies-17 (RFC 9913). | |||
| Original: | ||||
| Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture | ||||
| Current: | ||||
| Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Architecture | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] We have removed "Without Affiliation" from the document header | ||||
| and Author's Addresses section to align with draft-ietf-raw-technologies | ||||
| and draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection. | ||||
| Note: Per Section 4.1.2 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), an author's | ||||
| affiliation may be left blank or include "Independent", "Individual | ||||
| Contributor", "Retired", or a similar term. Please let us know if you prefer | ||||
| to use one of these terms instead, and we will apply that to all documents in | ||||
| this cluster. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <title abbrev="RAW Architecture">Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Archite | ||||
| cture</title> | ||||
| <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9912"/> | ||||
| <author initials='P' surname='Thubert' fullname='Pascal Thubert' role='editor' | ||||
| > | ||||
| <organization></organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <postal> | ||||
| <city>Roquefort-les-Pins</city> | ||||
| <code>06330</code> | ||||
| <country>France</country> | ||||
| </postal> | ||||
| <email>pascal.thubert@gmail.com</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <date month="February" year="2026"/> | ||||
| <area>RTG</area> | ||||
| <workgroup>detnet</workgroup> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in | ||||
| the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> | ||||
| <keyword>example</keyword> | ||||
| <date/> | ||||
| <area>Routing Area</area> | ||||
| <workgroup>DetNet</workgroup> | ||||
| <keyword>Draft</keyword> | ||||
| <abstract> | <abstract> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) extends the reliability and | Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) extends the reliability and | |||
| availability of DetNet to networks composed of any combination of wired an d | availability of Deterministic Networking (DetNet) to networks composed of any combination of wired and | |||
| wireless segments. | wireless segments. | |||
| The RAW Architecture leverages and extends RFC 8655, the | The RAW architecture leverages and extends RFC 8655 ("Deterministic | |||
| Deterministic Networking Architecture, to adapt to challenges that | Networking Architecture") to adapt to challenges that prominently affect | |||
| affect prominently the wireless medium, notably intermittent transmission | the wireless medium, notably intermittent transmission loss. | |||
| loss. | ||||
| This document defines a network control loop that optimizes the use of | This document defines a network control loop that optimizes the use of | |||
| constrained bandwidth and energy while assuring the expected | constrained bandwidth and energy while ensuring the expected | |||
| DetNet services. | DetNet services. | |||
| The loop involves a new Point of Local Repair (PLR) function in | The loop involves a new Point of Local Repair (PLR) function in | |||
| the DetNet Service sub-layer that dynamically selects the DetNet | the DetNet Service sub-layer that dynamically selects the DetNet | |||
| path(s) for packets to route around local connectivity degradation. | path(s) for packets to route around local connectivity degradation. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </abstract> | </abstract> | |||
| </front> | </front> | |||
| <middle> | <middle> | |||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Introduction</name> | <name>Introduction</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Deterministic Networking aims at providing bounded latency and eliminating | Deterministic Networking (DetNet) aims to provide bounded latency and elimina | |||
| congestion loss, even when co-existing with best-effort traffic. | te | |||
| congestion loss, even when coexisting with best-effort traffic. | ||||
| It provides the ability to carry | It provides the ability to carry | |||
| specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications | specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications | |||
| with extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end | with extremely low packet loss rates and ensures maximum end-to-end | |||
| delivery latency. A description of the general background and | delivery latency. A description of the general background and | |||
| concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655]. | concepts of DetNet can be found in <xref target="RFC8655"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| DetNet and the related IEEE 802.1 | DetNet and the related IEEE 802.1 | |||
| Time-Sensitive networking (TSN) <xref target="TSN"/> initially focused on wir ed | Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) <xref target="TSN"/> initially focused on wir ed | |||
| infrastructure, which provides a more stable communication channel | infrastructure, which provides a more stable communication channel | |||
| than wireless networks. | than wireless networks. | |||
| Wireless networks operate on a shared medium where uncontrolled interference, | Wireless networks operate on a shared medium where uncontrolled interference, | |||
| including the self-induced multipath fading, may cause intermittent transmiss ion losses. | including self-induced multipath fading, may cause intermittent transmission losses. | |||
| Fixed and mobile obstacles and reflectors may block or alter the signal, | Fixed and mobile obstacles and reflectors may block or alter the signal, | |||
| causing transient and unpredictable variations of the throughput and packet | causing transient and unpredictable variations of the throughput and Packet | |||
| delivery ratio (PDR) of a wireless link. This adds new dimensions to the | Delivery Ratio (PDR) of a wireless link. This adds new dimensions to the | |||
| statistical effects that affect the quality and reliability of the link. | statistical effects that affect the quality and reliability of the link. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Nevertheless, deterministic capabilities are required in a number of wireless | Nevertheless, deterministic capabilities are required in a number of | |||
| use cases as well <xref target="I-D.ietf-raw-use-cases"/>. With scheduled | wireless use cases as well <xref target="RFC9450"/>. With scheduled radios | |||
| radios such as Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) and Orthogonal Frequency | such as Time-Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH) and Orthogonal | |||
| Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) (see <xref target="I-D.ietf-raw-technologies | Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) being developed | |||
| "/> for more on both of these and other technologies as well) | to provide determinism over wireless links at the lower layers, providing | |||
| being developed to provide determinism over wireless links at the lower | DetNet capabilities has become possible. See <xref target="RFC9913"/> | |||
| layers, providing DetNet capabilities has become possible. | for more on TSCH, OFDMA, and other technologies. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) takes up the challenge of providing | Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) takes up the challenge of providing | |||
| highly available and reliable end-to-end performances in a DetNet network tha | highly available and reliable end-to-end performances in a DetNet network | |||
| t may include | that may include wireless segments. To achieve this, RAW leverages all | |||
| wireless segments. To achieve this, RAW leverages all the possible transmissi | possible transmission diversity and redundancy to ensure packet delivery, | |||
| on | while optimizing the use of the shared spectrum to preserve bandwidth and | |||
| diversity and redundancy to assure packet delivery, while optimizing the use | save energy. To that effect, RAW defines protection paths that can be activa | |||
| of the shared spectrum to preserve bandwidth and save energy. | ted | |||
| To that effect, RAW defines Protection Paths can be activated dynamically up | dynamically upon failures and a control loop that dynamically controls the | |||
| on failures and a control loop that dynamically controls the activation and deac | activation and deactivation of the feasible protection paths to react | |||
| tivation of the feasible Protection Paths to react quickly to intermittent losse | quickly to intermittent losses. | |||
| s. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The intent of RAW is to meet Service Level Objectives (SLOs) in terms of P DR, maximum contiguous losses, or latency boundaries for DetNet flows over mixes of wired and wireless networks, including wireless access and meshes (see <xref target="problem"/> for more on the RAW problem). | ||||
| The intent of RAW is to meet Service Level Objectives (SLO) in terms of pack | This document introduces and/or leverages terminology (see <xref target="term | |||
| et delivery ratio (PDR), maximum contiguous losses or latency boundaries for Det | s"/>), principles (see <xref target="raw"/>), and concepts such as protection pa | |||
| Net flows over mixes of wired and wireless networks, including wireless access a | ths and recovery graphs to put together a conceptual model for RAW (see <xref ta | |||
| nd meshes (see <xref target="problem"/> for more on the RAW problem). | rget="model"/>). Based on that model, this document elaborates on an in-network | |||
| optimization control loop (see <xref target="control"/>). | ||||
| This document introduces and/or leverages terminology (see <xref target="term | ||||
| s"/>), principles (see <xref target="raw"/>), and concepts such as protection p | ||||
| ath and recovery graph, to put together a conceptual model for RAW (see <xref ta | ||||
| rget="model"/>), and, based on that model, elaborate on an | ||||
| in-network optimization control loop (see <xref target="control"/>). | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!-- Introduction --> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | ||||
| <section anchor="problem" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="problem" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>The RAW problem</name> | <name>The RAW Problem</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| While the generic <xref target="RFC8557">"Deterministic Networking | While the generic "Deterministic Networking Problem Statement" <xref | |||
| Problem Statement"</xref> applies to both the wired and the wireless media, | target="RFC8557"/> applies to both wired and wireless media, the "Determinist | |||
| the <xref target="RFC8655">"Deterministic Networking Architecture" | ic Networking Architecture" <xref | |||
| </xref> must be extended to address less consistent | target="RFC8655"/> must be extended to address less consistent | |||
| transmissions, energy conservation, and shared spectrum efficiency. | transmissions, energy conservation, and shared spectrum efficiency. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Operating at Layer 3, RAW does not change the wireless technology at the | ||||
| Operating at Layer-3, RAW does not change the wireless technology at the lowe | lower layers. On the other hand, it can further increase diversity in the | |||
| r layers. OTOH, it can further increase diversity in the spatial, | spatial, time, code, and frequency domains by enabling multiple link-layer | |||
| time, code, and frequency domains by enabling multiple link-layer wired and | wired and wireless technologies in parallel or sequentially, for a higher | |||
| wireless technologies in parallel or sequentially, for a higher resilience | resilience and a wider applicability. RAW can also provide homogeneous | |||
| and a wider applicability. RAW can also provide homogeneous services to | services to critical applications beyond the boundaries of a single | |||
| critical applications beyond the boundaries of a single subnetwork, e.g., | subnetwork, e.g., using diverse radio access technologies to optimize the | |||
| using diverse radio access technologies to optimize the | ||||
| end-to-end application experience. | end-to-end application experience. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW extends the DetNet services by providing elements that are specialized | RAW extends the DetNet services by providing elements that are specialized | |||
| for transporting IP flows over deterministic radio technologies such as | for transporting IP flows over deterministic radio technologies such as | |||
| listed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-raw-technologies"/>. | those listed in <xref target="RFC9913"/>. Conceptually, RAW is agnostic to | |||
| Conceptually, RAW is agnostic to the lower layer, though the | the lower layer, though the capability to control latency is assumed to | |||
| capability to control latency is assumed to assure the DetNet services that R | ensure the DetNet services that RAW extends. How the lower layers are | |||
| AW extends. | operated to do so (and whether a radio network is single hop or | |||
| How the lower layers are operated to do so, and, e.g., whether a radio networ | meshed, for example) are opaque to the IP layer and not part of the RAW abstr | |||
| k is single-hop or meshed, are opaque to the IP layer and not part of the RAW ab | action. | |||
| straction. | ||||
| Nevertheless, cross-layer optimizations may take place to ensure proper | Nevertheless, cross-layer optimizations may take place to ensure proper | |||
| link awareness (think, link quality) and packet handling (think, scheduling). | link awareness (such as link quality) and packet handling (such as | |||
| scheduling). | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW Architecture extends the DetNet Network Plane, to accommodate one or | The RAW architecture extends the DetNet Network Plane to accommodate one or | |||
| multiple hops of homogeneous or heterogeneous wired and wireless technologies . | multiple hops of homogeneous or heterogeneous wired and wireless technologies . | |||
| RAW adds reactivity to the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer to compensate the dyna mics | RAW adds reactivity to the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer to compensate the dyna mics | |||
| for the radio links in terms of lossiness and bandwidth. This may apply, for | for the radio links in terms of lossiness and bandwidth. This may apply, for | |||
| instance, to mesh networks as illustrated in <xref target ="FigCPF"/>, or | instance, to mesh networks as illustrated in <xref target ="FigCPF"/> or | |||
| diverse radio access networks as illustrated in <xref target ="Figranp2"/>. | diverse radio access networks as illustrated in <xref target ="Figranp2"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| As opposed to wired links, the availability and performance of an individual | As opposed to wired links, the availability and performance of an individual | |||
| wireless link cannot be trusted over the long term; it varies with | wireless link cannot be trusted over the long term; it varies with | |||
| transient service discontinuity, and any path that includes wireless | transient service discontinuity, and any path that includes wireless | |||
| hops is bound to face short periods of high loss. On the other hand, being | hops is bound to face short periods of high loss. On the other hand, being | |||
| broadcast in nature, the wireless medium provides capabilities that are | broadcast in nature, the wireless medium provides capabilities that are | |||
| atypical on modern wired links and that the RAW Architecture can leverage | atypical on modern wired links and that the RAW architecture can leverage | |||
| opportunistically to improve the end-to-end reliability over a collection of | opportunistically to improve the end-to-end reliability over a collection of | |||
| paths. | paths. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Those capabilities include: | Those capabilities include: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <dl> | <dl> | |||
| <dt>Promiscuous Overhearing:</dt><dd> Some wired and wireless | <dt>Promiscuous overhearing:</dt><dd> Some wired and wireless | |||
| technologies allow for multiple lower-layer attached nodes to receive | technologies allow for multiple lower-layer attached nodes to receive | |||
| the same packet sent by another node. This differs from a | the same packet sent by another node. This differs from a | |||
| lower-layer network that is physically point-to-point like a wire. | lower-layer network that is physically point-to-point, like a wire. | |||
| With overhearing, more than one | With overhearing, more than one | |||
| node in the forward direction of the packet may hear or overhear a | node in the forward direction of the packet may hear or overhear a | |||
| transmission, and the reception by one may compensate the loss by another. | transmission, and the reception by one may compensate the loss by another. | |||
| The concept of path can be revisited in favor of multipoint to multipoint | The concept of path can be revisited in favor of multipoint-to-multipoint | |||
| progress in the forward direction and statistical chances of successful | progress in the forward direction and statistical chances of successful | |||
| reception of any of the transmissions by any of the receivers. | reception of any of the transmissions by any of the receivers. | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>L2-aware routing:</dt><dd> As the quality and speed of a link varies | <dt>L2-aware routing:</dt> | |||
| <dd><t>As the quality and speed of a link varies | ||||
| over time, the concept of metric must also be revisited. Shortest-path cost loses | over time, the concept of metric must also be revisited. Shortest-path cost loses | |||
| its absolute value, and hop count turns into a bad idea as the link budget | its absolute value, and hop count turns into a bad idea as the link budget | |||
| drops with the physical distance. Routing over radio requires both 1) a new | drops with the physical distance. Routing over radio requires both:</t> | |||
| and more | ||||
| dynamic sense of link metrics, with new protocols such as DLEP and L2-trigge | <ol> | |||
| r to | <li>a new and more dynamic sense of link metrics, with new protocols | |||
| keep L3 up to date with the link quality and availability, and 2) an | such as the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) and Layer 2 (L2) trigger | |||
| approach to multipath routing, where multiple link metrics are | s to keep Layer 3 (L3) up to date with the link quality | |||
| considered since simple shortest-path cost loses its meaning with | and availability, and</li> | |||
| the instability of the metrics. | <li>an approach to multipath routing, where multiple link metrics are | |||
| considered since simple shortest-path cost loses its meaning with the | ||||
| instability of the metrics.</li> | ||||
| </ol> | ||||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] May we update "ack-based" to either "acknowledgment-based" or | ||||
| "ACK-based" in the text below to clarify its meaning? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Redundant transmissions: Though feasible on any technology, | ||||
| proactive (forward) and reactive (ack-based) error correction are | ||||
| typical to the wireless media. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Redundant transmissions: Though feasible on any technology, | ||||
| proactive (forward) and reactive (acknowledgment-based) error correction i | ||||
| s | ||||
| typical for wireless media. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <dt>Redundant transmissions:</dt><dd>Though feasible on any technology, proa ctive | <dt>Redundant transmissions:</dt><dd>Though feasible on any technology, proa ctive | |||
| (forward) and reactive (ack-based) error correction are typical to the wirel ess | (forward) and reactive (ack-based) error correction are typical for wireless | |||
| media. Bounded latency can still be obtained on a wireless link while | media. Bounded latency can still be obtained on a wireless link while | |||
| operating those technologies, provided that link latency used in | operating those technologies, provided that link latency used in | |||
| path selection allows for the extra transmission, or that the introduced del ay is | path selection allows for the extra transmission or the introduced delay is | |||
| compensated along the path. In the case of coded fragments and retries, it | compensated along the path. In the case of coded fragments and retries, it | |||
| makes sense to vary all the possible physical properties of the | makes sense to vary all the possible physical properties of the | |||
| transmission to reduce the chances that the same effect causes the loss of | transmission to reduce the chances that the same effect causes the loss of | |||
| both original and redundant transmissions. | both original and redundant transmissions. | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Relay Coordination and constructive interference:</dt><dd>Though it can | ||||
| be difficult to achieve at high speed, a fine time synchronization and a | <!-- [rfced] Should "translate taking" here be updated to "translate to taking"? | |||
| precise sense of phase allows the energy from multiple coordinated senders | ||||
| to add up at the receiver and actually improve the signal quality, | Original: | |||
| From a DetNet perspective, this may translate taking into account | ||||
| how transmission from one node may interfere with the transmission | ||||
| of another node attached to the same wireless sub-layer network. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| From a DetNet perspective, this may translate to taking into account | ||||
| how transmission from one node may interfere with the transmission | ||||
| of another node attached to the same wireless sub-layer network. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <dt>Relay coordination and constructive interference:</dt><dd>Though it | ||||
| can be difficult to achieve at high speed, a fine time synchronization and | ||||
| a precise sense of phase allows the energy from multiple coordinated | ||||
| senders to add up at the receiver and actually improve the signal quality, | ||||
| compensating for either distance or physical objects in the Fresnel zone | compensating for either distance or physical objects in the Fresnel zone | |||
| that would reduce the link budget. From a DetNet perspective, this | that would reduce the link budget. From a DetNet perspective, this may | |||
| may translate taking into account how transmission from one node may | translate taking into account how transmission from one node may interfere | |||
| interfere with the transmission of another node attached to the same | with the transmission of another node attached to the same wireless | |||
| wireless sub-layer network. | sub-layer network. | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| </dl> | </dl> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW and DetNet enable application flows that require a special treatment alo ng paths that can provide that treatment. | RAW and DetNet enable application flows that require a special treatment alo ng paths that can provide that treatment. | |||
| This may be seen as a form of Path Aware Networking and may be subject to | This may be seen as a form of Path Aware networking and may be subject to | |||
| impediments documented in <xref target="RFC9049"/>. | impediments documented in <xref target="RFC9049"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "It" refers to in the second | ||||
| sentence (e.g., to "path", "mechanism", "RAW")? Also, how may we clarify | ||||
| "ala"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The mechanisms used to establish a path is not unique to, or | ||||
| necessarily impacted by, RAW. It is expected to be the product of | ||||
| the DetNet Controller Plane | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework], and may use a Path | ||||
| computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] or the DetNet Yang Data Model | ||||
| [RFC9633], or may be computed in a distributed fashion ala Resource | ||||
| ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205]. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The mechanism used to establish a path is not unique to, or | ||||
| necessarily impacted by, RAW. The mechanism is expected to be the product of | ||||
| the DetNet Controller Plane [DetNet-PLANE]; it may use a Path | ||||
| Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] or the DetNet YANG data model | ||||
| [RFC9633], or it may be computed in a distributed fashion as per the | ||||
| Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205]. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The mechanisms used to establish a path is not unique to, or necessarily | The mechanism used to establish a path is not unique to, or necessarily | |||
| impacted by, RAW. It is expected to be the product of the DetNet | impacted by, RAW. It is expected to be the product of the DetNet Controller | |||
| Controller Plane <xref | Plane <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework"/>; it may | |||
| target="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework"/>, and may use | use a Path Computation Element (PCE) <xref target="RFC4655"/> or the DetNet | |||
| a Path computation Element (PCE) <xref target="RFC4655"/> or the | YANG data model <xref target="RFC9633"/>, or it may be computed in a | |||
| DetNet Yang Data Model <xref target="RFC9633"/>, or may be | distributed fashion ala the Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) <xref | |||
| computed in a distributed fashion ala | target="RFC2205"/>. Either way, the assumption is that it is slow relative | |||
| Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) <xref target="RFC2205"/>. | to local forwarding operations along the path. To react fast enough to | |||
| Either way, the assumption is that it is slow relative to | transient changes in the radio transmissions, RAW leverages DetNet Network | |||
| local forwarding operations along the path. | Plane enhancements to optimize the use of the paths and match the quality | |||
| To react fast enough to transient changes in the radio transmissions, RAW lev | of the transmissions over time. | |||
| erages DetNet Network Plane enhancements to | ||||
| optimize the use of the paths and match the quality of the transmissions over | ||||
| time. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| As opposed to wired | As opposed to wired networks, the action of installing a path over a set of | |||
| networks, the action of installing a path over a set of wireless links | wireless links may be very slow relative to the speed at which the radio | |||
| may be very slow relative to the speed at which the radio conditions vary, | conditions vary; thus, in the wireless case, it makes sense to provide | |||
| and it makes sense in the wireless case to provide redundant forwarding | redundant forwarding solutions along alternate paths (see <xref | |||
| solutions along a alternate paths (see <xref target="pt"/>) and to leave it | target="pt"/>) and to leave it to the Network Plane to select which of | |||
| to the Network Plane to select which of those forwarding solutions are to be | those forwarding solutions are to be used for a given packet based on the | |||
| used for a given packet based on the current conditions. | current conditions. The RAW Network Plane operations happen within the | |||
| The RAW Network Plane operations happen within the scope of a recovery graph | scope of a recovery graph (see <xref target="trk"/>) that is | |||
| (see <xref target="trk"/>) that is pre-established and installed | pre-established and installed by means outside of the scope of RAW. | |||
| by means outside of the scope of RAW. | ||||
| A recovery graph may be strict or loose depending on whether | A recovery graph may be strict or loose depending on whether | |||
| each or just a subset of the hops are observed and controlled by RAW. | each hop or just a subset of the hops is observed and controlled by RAW. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW distinguishes the longer time-scale at which routes are computed from the | RAW distinguishes the longer timescale at which routes are computed from | |||
| shorter time-scale where forwarding decisions are made (see <xref target= "ti | the shorter timescale where forwarding decisions are made (see <xref | |||
| mescale"/>). | target= "timescale"/>). The RAW Network Plane operations happen at a | |||
| The RAW Network Plane operations happen at a time-scale that sits timewise be | timescale that sits timewise between the routing and the forwarding | |||
| tween the | timescales. Within the resources delineated by a recovery graph, their | |||
| routing and the forwarding time-scales. Their goal is to select dynamically, | goal is to dynamically select the protection path(s) that the upcoming | |||
| within the resources delineated by a recovery graph, the protection path(s) that | packets of a DetNet flow shall follow. As they influence the path for the | |||
| the upcoming packets of a DetNet flow shall follow. As they influence the path | entirety of the flows or a portion of them, the RAW Network Plane operations | |||
| for entire or portion of flows, the RAW Network Plane operations may affect the | may | |||
| metrics used in their rerouting decision, which could potentially lead to oscill | affect the metrics used in their rerouting decisions, which could | |||
| ations; such effects must be avoided or dampened. | potentially lead to oscillations; such effects must be avoided or dampened. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> <!-- The RAW problem --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="terms" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="terms" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Terminology</name> | <name>Terminology</name> | |||
| <t>RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in the <xref target="RFC8655"> | <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what "IETF art of Protection" is? Also, is a | |||
| "Deterministic Networking Architecture"</xref>, e.g., PREOF for Packet | reference needed in this sentence? | |||
| Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. RAW inherits and augments | ||||
| the IETF art of Protection as seen in DetNet and Traffic Engineering. | Original: | |||
| RAW inherits and | ||||
| augments the IETF art of Protection as seen in DetNet and Traffic | ||||
| Engineering. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t>RAW reuses terminology defined for DetNet in "Deterministic Networking | ||||
| Architecture" <xref target="RFC8655"/>, e.g., "PREOF" to stand for "Packet | ||||
| Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions". RAW inherits and | ||||
| augments the IETF art of protection as seen in DetNet and Traffic | ||||
| Engineering. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t>RAW reuses terminology defined for Operations, Administration, and Mainte | <t>RAW also reuses terminology defined for Operations, Administration, and | |||
| nance (OAM) protocols | Maintenance (OAM) protocols in Section <xref target="RFC9551" sectionFormat= | |||
| in Section 1.1 of the <xref target="RFC9551"> "Framework of OAM for DetNet" < | "bare" | |||
| /xref> and | section="1.1"/> of "Framework of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance | |||
| <xref target="RFC7799">"Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid T | (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)" <xref target="RFC9551"/> and in | |||
| ypes In-Between)" </xref>. | "Active and Passive | |||
| Metrics and Methods (with Hybrid Types In-Between)" <xref | ||||
| target="RFC7799"/>. | ||||
| <!-- | <!-- [rfced] For clarity, we have replaced the comma in the text below with | |||
| <xref target="I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization">"Guidelines for Character | "for". Please review to ensure this update does not change your meaning. | |||
| izing OAM"</xref> | ||||
| provides additional semantics of the terms Active, Passive, Hybrid, and In-Pa | Original: | |||
| cket OAM that are consistent with | ||||
| <xref target="RFC7799"/>. It also warns about potential inconsistencies in t | RAW also reuses terminology defined for MPLS in [RFC4427] such as the | |||
| he way the terms "in-band" and "out-of-band" are used across the IETF; the DetNe | term recovery as covering both Protection and Restoration, a number | |||
| t reference for those terms is <xref target="RFC9551"/>. | of recovery types. | |||
| Current: | ||||
| RAW also reuses terminology defined for MPLS in [RFC4427] such as the | ||||
| term "recovery" to cover both protection and restoration for a number | ||||
| of recovery types. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| --> | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW also reuses terminology defined for MPLS in <xref target= | RAW also reuses terminology defined for MPLS in <xref target="RFC4427" | |||
| "RFC4427" format="default"/> such as the term recovery as covering | format="default"/>, such as the term "recovery" to cover both protection | |||
| both Protection and Restoration, a number of recovery types. | and restoration for a number of recovery types. That document defines a | |||
| That document defines a number of concepts such as recovery domain that are | number of concepts, such as the recovery domain, that are used in RAW | |||
| used in the RAW mechanisms, and defines the new term recovery graph. | mechanisms and defines the new term "recovery graph". A recovery graph | |||
| A recovery graph associates a topological graph with usage metadata that | associates a topological graph with usage metadata that represents how the | |||
| represents how the paths are built and used within the recovery graph. | paths are built and used within the recovery graph. The recovery graph | |||
| The recovery graph provides excess bandwidth for the intended traffic over a | provides excess bandwidth for the intended traffic over alternate | |||
| lternate potential paths, and | potential paths, and the use of that bandwidth is optimized dynamically. | |||
| the use of that bandwidth is optimized dynamically. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW also reuses terminology defined for RSVP-TE in <xref target= | RAW also reuses terminology defined for RSVP-TE in <xref target= | |||
| "RFC4090" format="default"/> such as the Point of Local Repair (PLR). | "RFC4090" format="default"/>, such as the "Point of Local Repair (PLR)". | |||
| The concept of backup path is generalized with protection path, which is the | The concept of a backup path is generalized with protection path, which is t | |||
| he | ||||
| term mostly found in recent standards and used in this document. | term mostly found in recent standards and used in this document. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in <xref target= | RAW also reuses terminology defined for 6TiSCH in <xref target= | |||
| "RFC9030" format="default"/> and equates the 6TiSCH concept of a Track with | "RFC9030" format="default"/> and equates the 6TiSCH concept of a Track with | |||
| that of a recovery graph. | that of a recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] This sentence appears at the end of Section 3. Please review the | ||||
| placement, and let us know if this should be added to (or moved to | ||||
| follow) the third paragraph in Section 3, which also discusses recovery graphs. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The concept of recovery graph is agnostic to the underlying | ||||
| technology and applies but is not limited to any full or partial | ||||
| wireless mesh. RAW specifies strict and loose recovery graphs | ||||
| depending on whether the path is fully controlled by RAW or traverses | ||||
| an opaque network where RAW cannot observe and control the individual | ||||
| hops. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The concept of recovery graph is agnostic to | The concept of a recovery graph is agnostic to | |||
| the underlying technology and applies but is not limited to any full or | the underlying technology and applies, but is not limited to, any full or | |||
| partial wireless mesh. | partial wireless mesh. | |||
| RAW specifies strict and loose recovery graphs depending on whether the path is fully | RAW specifies strict and loose recovery graphs depending on whether the path is fully | |||
| controlled by RAW or traverses an opaque network where RAW cannot observe | controlled by RAW or traverses an opaque network where RAW cannot observe | |||
| and control the individual hops. | and control the individual hops. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: If no objections, we will update this section to use | ||||
| <dl> instead of a separate subsection for each abbreviation. Note that | ||||
| this aligns with the format used in draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection-40 | ||||
| (also part of Cluster 538) and is more typical in the RFC Series. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <section><name>Abbreviations</name> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW uses the following terminology and acronyms: | RAW uses the following abbreviations. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <section><name>Acronyms</name> | ||||
| <section><name>ARQ</name> | <section><name>ARQ</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Automatic Repeat Request, a well-known mechanism, enabling an acknowledged | Automatic Repeat Request. A well-known mechanism that enables an acknowledged | |||
| transmission with retries to mitigate errors and loss. ARQ may be | transmission with retries to mitigate errors and loss. ARQ may be | |||
| implemented at various layers in a network. ARQ is typically implemented at | implemented at various layers in a network. ARQ is typically implemented | |||
| Layer-2, per hop and not end-to-end in wireless networks. ARQ improves | per hop (not end to end) at Layer 2 in wireless networks. ARQ improves | |||
| delivery on lossy wireless. Additionally, ARQ retransmission may be further | delivery on lossy wireless. Additionally, ARQ retransmission may be further | |||
| limited by a bounded time to meet end-to-end packet latency constraints. | limited by a bounded time to meet end-to-end packet latency constraints. | |||
| Additional details and considerations for ARQ are detailed in | Additional details and considerations for ARQ are detailed in | |||
| <xref target="RFC3366"/>. | <xref target="RFC3366"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>FEC</name> | <section><name>FEC</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Forward Error Correction, adding redundant data to protect against a partial | Forward Error Correction. Adding redundant data to protect against a partial | |||
| loss without retries. | loss without retries. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>HARQ</name> | <section><name>HARQ</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Hybrid ARQ, combining FEC and ARQ. | Hybrid ARQ. A combination of FEC and ARQ. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>ETX</name> | <section><name>ETX</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Expected Transmission Count: a statistical metric that represents the expect | Expected Transmission Count. A statistical metric that represents the | |||
| ed total number of packet transmissions (including retransmissions) required to | expected total number of packet transmissions (including retransmissions) | |||
| successfully deliver a packet along a path, used by 6TiSCH <xref target="RFC6551 | required to successfully deliver a packet along a path, used by 6TiSCH | |||
| "/>. | <xref target="RFC6551"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>ISM</name> | <section><name>ISM</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Industrial, Scientific, and Medical. Refers to a | ||||
| The industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) radio band refers to a group o | group of radio bands or parts of the radio spectrum (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 | |||
| f radio bands or parts of the radio spectrum (e.g., 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz) that are | GHz) that are internationally reserved for the use of radio frequency (RF) | |||
| internationally reserved for the use of radio frequency (RF) energy intended for | energy intended for industrial, scientific, and medical requirements (e.g., | |||
| scientific, medical, and industrial requirements, e.g., by microwaves, depth ra | by microwaves, depth radars, and medical diathermy | |||
| dars, and medical diathermy machines. Cordless phones, Bluetooth and LoWPAN devi | machines). Cordless phones, Bluetooth and Low-Power Wireless Personal Area N | |||
| ces, near-field communication (NFC) devices, garage door openers, baby monitors, | etwork (LoWPAN) devices, near-field | |||
| and Wi-Fi networks may all use the ISM frequencies, although these low-power tr | communication (NFC) devices, garage door openers, baby monitors, and Wi-Fi | |||
| ansmitters are not considered to be ISM devices. In general, communications equi | networks may all use the ISM frequencies, although these low-power | |||
| pment operating in ISM bands must tolerate any interference generated by ISM app | transmitters are not considered to be ISM devices. In general, | |||
| lications, and users have no regulatory protection from ISM device operation in | communications equipment operating in ISM bands must tolerate any | |||
| these bands. | interference generated by ISM applications, and users have no regulatory | |||
| protection from ISM device operation in these bands. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>PER and PDR</name> | <section><name>PER</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Packet Error Rate. The ratio of the number of | ||||
| packets received in error to the total number of transmitted packets. A | ||||
| packet is considered to be in error if even a single bit within the packet | ||||
| is received incorrectly.</t> | ||||
| </section> | ||||
| The Packet Error Rate (PER) is defined as the ratio of the number of packets | <section><name>PDR</name> | |||
| received in error to the total number of transmitted packets. A packet is consi | <t>Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). The ratio of the number of | |||
| dered to be in error if even a single bit within the packet is received incorrec | successfully delivered data packets to the total number of | |||
| tly. In contrast, the Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) indicates the ratio of the num | packets transmitted from the sender to the receiver.</t> | |||
| ber successful delivery of data packets to the total number of transmitted pack | ||||
| ets from the sender to the receiver. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>RSSI</name> | <section><name>RSSI</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Received Signal Strength Indication (a.k.a. Energy Detection Level): a measu re of incoherent (raw) RF power in a channel. The RF power can come from any sou rce: other transmitters using the same technology, other radio technology using the same band, or background radiation. For a single-hop, RSSI may be used for L QI. | Received Signal Strength Indication. Also known as "Energy Detection Level". A measure of the incoherent (raw) RF power in a channel. The RF power can come from any source: other transmitters using the same technology, other radio techn ology using the same band, or background radiation. For a single hop, RSSI may b e used for LQI. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>LQI</name> | <section><name>LQI</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Link Quality Indicator. An indication of the quality of the data packets rec | ||||
| The link quality indicator (LQI) is an indication of the quality of the data | eived by the receiver. | |||
| packets received by the receiver. | It is typically derived from packet error statistics, with the exact method | |||
| It is typically derived from packet error statistics, the exact method depen | depending on the network stack being used. | |||
| ding on the network stack being used. | ||||
| LQI values may be exposed to the controller plane for each individual hop or cumulated along segments. | LQI values may be exposed to the controller plane for each individual hop or cumulated along segments. | |||
| Outgoing LQI values can be calculated from coherent (demodulated) PER, RSSI and incoming LQI values. | Outgoing LQI values can be calculated from coherent (demodulated) PER, RSSI, and incoming LQI values. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>OAM</name> | <section><name>OAM</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| OAM stands for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance, and | Operations, Administration, and Maintenance. Covers the processes, | |||
| covers the processes, activities, tools, and standards involved | activities, tools, and standards involved with operating, administering, | |||
| with operating, administering, managing, and maintaining any | managing, and maintaining any system. This document uses the term | |||
| system. This document uses the terms Operations, Administration, | in conformance with "Guidelines for the Use of the 'OAM' Acronym in the IE | |||
| and Maintenance, in conformance with the <xref target="RFC6291"> | TF" <xref | |||
| 'Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" Acronym in the IETF'</xref> | target="RFC6291"/>, and the system observed by the RAW OAM is the | |||
| and the system observed by the RAW OAM is the recovery graph. | recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>OODA</name> | <section><name>OODA</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) is a generic formalism to represent the | Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. A generic formalism to represent the | |||
| operational steps in a Control Loop. In the context of RAW, OODA is applied | operational steps in a Control Loop. In the context of RAW, OODA is | |||
| to network | applied to network control and convergence; see <xref | |||
| control and convergence, more in <xref target="ooda"/>. | target="ooda"/> for more. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>SNR</name> | <section><name>SNR</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Signal-Noise Ratio (a.k.a. S/N): a measure used in science and engineering t | Signal-to-Noise Ratio. Also known as "S/N Ratio". A measure used in science | |||
| hat compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise. SNR | and engineering that compares the level of a desired signal to the level | |||
| is defined as the ratio of signal power to noise power, often expressed in deci | of background noise. SNR is defined as the ratio of signal power to noise | |||
| bels. | power, often expressed in decibels. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| </section> | ||||
| </section><!--Acronyms--> | <!-- [rfced] May we update these section titles to use the plural "Links" and | |||
| "Paths"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| 3.2. Link and Direction | ||||
| 3.3. Path and Recovery Graphs | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| 3.2. Links and Direction | ||||
| 3.3. Paths and Recovery Graphs | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] Introductory text | ||||
| a) Sections 3.4 and 3.5 contain introductory sentences. We have updated them | ||||
| as shown below. Please let us know any concerns. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| This document reuses the terminology in section 2 of [RFC8557] and | ||||
| section 4.1.2 of [DetNet-ARCHI] for deterministic networking and | ||||
| deterministic networks. | ||||
| ... | ||||
| In the context of the RAW work, Reliability and Availability are | ||||
| defined as follows: | ||||
| Current: | ||||
| This document reuses the terminology in Section 2 of [RFC8557] and | ||||
| in Section 4.1.2 of [DetNet-ARCHI] for deterministic networking and | ||||
| deterministic networks. This document also uses the following terms. | ||||
| ... | ||||
| This document uses the following terms relating to reliability and | ||||
| availability in the context of the RAW work. | ||||
| b) Should Sections 3.2 and 3.3 contain similar introductory sentences? If so, | ||||
| please provide the text. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| This document uses the following terms relating to links and direction | ||||
| in the context of RAW. | ||||
| ... | ||||
| This document uses the following terms relating to paths and recovery graphs | ||||
| in the context of RAW. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <section><name>Link and Direction</name> | <section><name>Link and Direction</name> | |||
| <section><name>Flapping</name> | <section><name>Flapping</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will "a subsecond to seconds duration" be clear to readers? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the reliability of the | ||||
| wireless connectivity drops abruptly for a short period of time, | ||||
| typically of a subsecond to seconds duration. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the reliability of the | ||||
| wireless connectivity drops abruptly for a short period of time, | ||||
| typically a duration of a subsecond or a second. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the reliability of the wireless | In the context of RAW, a link flaps when the reliability of the wireless | |||
| connectivity drops abruptly for a short period of time, typically of a | connectivity drops abruptly for a short period of time, typically | |||
| subsecond to seconds duration. | a duration of a subsecond to seconds. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Uplink</name> | <section><name>Uplink</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Connection from end-devices to data communication equipment. In the | An uplink is the connection from end devices to data communication equipmen t. In the | |||
| context of wireless, uplink refers to the connection between a station | context of wireless, uplink refers to the connection between a station | |||
| (STA) and a controller (AP) or a User Equipment (UE) to a Base Station (BS) | (STA) and a controller (AP) or a User Equipment (UE) and a Base Station (BS | |||
| such as a 3GPP 5G gNodeB (gNb). | ) | |||
| such as a 3GPP 5G gNodeB (gNB). | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Downlink</name> | <section><name>Downlink</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The reverse direction from uplink. | A downlink is the reverse direction from uplink. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Downstream</name> | <section><name>Downstream</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Following the direction of the flow data path along a recovery graph. | Downstream refers to the following the direction of the flow data path alon g a recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Upstream</name> | <section><name>Upstream</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Against the direction of the flow data path along a recovery graph. | Upstream refers to going against the direction of the flow data path along a recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| </section><!-- Link and Direction --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="pt"><name>Path and Recovery Graphs</name> | <section anchor="pt"><name>Path and Recovery Graphs</name> | |||
| <section><name>Path</name> | <section><name>Path</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Quoting section 1.1.3 of <xref target="RFC1122"/>: | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the direct quotes in Section 3.3.1 to exactly | ||||
| match the text in Section 1.3.3 of [INT-ARCHI] and Section 2 of | ||||
| [RFC9473]. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <xref target="RFC1122" section="1.3.3"/> provides a definition of Path: | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | |||
| At a given moment, all the IP datagrams from a particular source host to a | At a given moment, all the IP datagrams from a particular source host to a | |||
| particular destination host typically traverse the same sequence of | particular destination host will typically traverse the same sequence of | |||
| gateways. We use the term "path" for this sequence. Note that a path is | gateways. We use the term "path" for this sequence. Note that a path is | |||
| unidirectional; it is not unusual to have different paths in the two | uni-directional; it is not unusual to have different paths in the two | |||
| directions between a given host pair. | directions between a given host pair. | |||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Section 2 of <xref target="RFC9473"/> points to a | <xref target="RFC9473" section="2"/> points to a | |||
| longer, more modern definition of path, which begins as follows: | longer, more modern definition of path, which begins as follows: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <blockquote> | <blockquote> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can | A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can | |||
| be transmitted, starting and ending with a node. | be transmitted, starting and ending with a node. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| Paths are unidirectional and time-dependent, i.e., there can be a | Paths are unidirectional and time dependent, i.e., there can be a | |||
| variety of paths from one node to another, and the path over which | variety of paths from one node to another, and the path over which | |||
| packets are transmitted may change. A path definition can be | packets are transmitted may change. A path definition can be strict | |||
| fixed (i.e., the exact sequence of path elements remains the | (i.e., the exact sequence of path elements remains the same) or loose | |||
| same) or mutable (i.e., the start and end node remain the same, but | (i.e., the start and end node remain the same, but the path elements | |||
| the path elements between them may vary over time). | between them may vary over time). | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| The representation of a path and its properties may depend on the | The representation of a path and its properties may depend on the | |||
| entity considering the path. On the one hand, the representation | entity considering the path. On the one hand, the representation | |||
| may differ due to entities having partial visibility of path | may differ due to entities having partial visibility of path | |||
| elements comprising a path or their visibility changing over time. | elements comprising a path or their visibility changing over time. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| It follows that the general acceptance of a path is a linear sequence of | It follows that the general acceptance of a path is a linear sequence of | |||
| links and nodes, as opposed to a multi-dimensional graph, defined by the | links and nodes, as opposed to a multi-dimensional graph, defined by the | |||
| experience of the packet that went from a node A to a node B. | experience of the packet that went from a node A to a node B. | |||
| In the context of this document, a path is observed by following one copy | In the context of this document, a path is observed by following one copy | |||
| or one fragment of a packet that conserves its uniqueness and integrity. | or one fragment of a packet that conserves its uniqueness and integrity. | |||
| For instance, if C replicates to E and F and D eliminates duplicates, | For instance, if C replicates to E and F and if D eliminates duplicates, | |||
| a packet from A to B can experience 2 paths, A->C->E->D->B and | a packet from A to B can experience two paths: A->C->E->D->B and | |||
| A->C->F->D->B. Those paths are called protection paths. Protection | A->C->F->D->B. Those paths are called protection paths. Protection | |||
| paths may be fully non-congruent, and alternatively may intersect at | paths may be fully non-congruent; alternatively, they may intersect at | |||
| replication or elimination points. | replication or elimination points. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> With DetNet and RAW, | <t> With DetNet and RAW, | |||
| a packet may be duplicated, fragmented, and network-coded, and the various | a packet may be duplicated, fragmented, and network coded, and the various | |||
| byproducts may travel different paths that are not necessarily end-to-end | byproducts may travel different paths that are not necessarily end to end | |||
| between A and B; we refer to that complex scenario as a DetNet path. | between A and B. We refer to this complex scenario as a DetNet path. | |||
| As such, the DetNet path extends the above description of a path, | As such, the DetNet path extends the above description of a path, | |||
| but it still matches the experience of a packet that traverses the network. | but it still matches the experience of a packet that traverses the network. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| With RAW, the path experienced by a packet is subject to change from one pac ket to the next, | With RAW, the path experienced by a packet is subject to change from one pac ket to the next, | |||
| but all the possible experiences are all contained within a finite set. | but all the possible experiences are all contained within a finite set. | |||
| Therefore, we introduce below the term of a recovery graph that coalesces | Therefore, we introduce the term "recovery graph" (see the next section) tha t coalesces | |||
| that set and covers the overall topology where the possible DetNet paths are | that set and covers the overall topology where the possible DetNet paths are | |||
| all contained. As such, the recovery graph coalesces all the possible paths | all contained. As such, the recovery graph coalesces all the possible paths | |||
| a flow | a flow | |||
| may experience, each with its own statistical probability to be used. | may experience, each with its own statistical probability to be used. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="trk"><name>Recovery Graph</name> | <section anchor="trk"><name>Recovery Graph</name> | |||
| <t>A networking graph that can be followed to transport packets with | <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3.2: Please clarify "represents not an actual but a | |||
| equivalent treatment, associated with usage metadata; as opposed to the | potential" in this text. | |||
| definition of a path above, a recovery graph represents not an actual but a | ||||
| potential, it is not necessarily a linear sequence like a simple path, and | Original: | |||
| is not | ||||
| necessarily fully traversed (flooded) by all packets of a flow like a DetNet | A networking graph that can be followed to transport packets with | |||
| Path. Still, and as a simplification, the casual reader may consider that a | equivalent treatment, associated with usage metadata; as opposed to | |||
| recovery graph is very much like a DetNet path, aggregating multiple paths t | the definition of a path above, a recovery graph represents not an | |||
| hat may | actual but a potential, it is not necessarily a linear sequence like | |||
| overlap, fork and rejoin, for instance to enable a protection service by the | a simple path, and is not necessarily fully traversed (flooded) by | |||
| PREOF operations. | all packets of a flow like a DetNet Path. | |||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| A recovery graph is a networking graph that can be followed to transport pack | ||||
| ets with | ||||
| equivalent treatment and is associated with usage metadata. In contrast to | ||||
| the definition of a path above, a recovery graph represents a | ||||
| potential path, not an actual one. Also, a recovery graph is not necessarily | ||||
| a | ||||
| linear sequence like | ||||
| a simple path and is not necessarily fully traversed (flooded) by | ||||
| all packets of a flow like a DetNet Path. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t>A recovery graph is a networking graph that can be followed to | ||||
| transport packets with equivalent treatment and is associated with usage | ||||
| metadata. In contrast to the definition of a path above, | ||||
| a recovery graph represents not an actual but a potential, is not | ||||
| necessarily a linear sequence like a simple path, and is not necessarily | ||||
| fully traversed (flooded) by all packets of a flow like a DetNet | ||||
| Path. Still, and as a simplification, the casual reader may consider that | ||||
| a recovery graph is very much like a DetNet path, aggregating multiple | ||||
| paths that may overlap or fork and then rejoin, for instance, to enable a | ||||
| protection service by the PREOF operations. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="Figtrk"> | <figure anchor="Figtrk"> | |||
| <name>Example IoT Recovery Graph to an IoT Gateway with 1+1 Redundancy </name> | <name>Example IoT Recovery Graph to an IoT Gateway with 1+1 Redundancy </name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| <![CDATA[ | ||||
| _________ | _________ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | IoT G/W | | | IoT G/W | | |||
| |_________| | |_________| | |||
| EGRESS <<=== Elimination at Egress | EGRESS <<=== Elimination at Egress | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| ---+--------+--+--------+-------- | ---+--------+--+--------+-------- | |||
| | Backbone | | | Backbone | | |||
| __|__ __|__ | __|__ __|__ | |||
| | | Backbone | | Backbone | | | Backbone | | Backbone | |||
| |__ __| Router |__ __| Router | |__ __| Router |__ __| Router | |||
| | # | | | # | | |||
| # \ # / <-- protection path | # \ # / <-- protection path | |||
| # # #-------# | # # #-------# | |||
| \ # / # ( Low-power ) | \ # / # ( Low-power ) | |||
| # # \ / # ( Lossy Network) | # # \ / # ( Lossy Network) | |||
| \ / | \ / | |||
| # INGRESS <<=== Replication at recovery graph Ingress | # INGRESS <<=== Replication at recovery graph Ingress | |||
| | | | | |||
| # <-- source device | # <-- source device | |||
| #: Low-power device | ||||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | ||||
| #: Low-power device | <!-- [rfced] Is "coalescence of the collection" redundant? Also, how may we | |||
| revise "for which a flow is assigned to the recovery graph" to improve | ||||
| clarity? | ||||
| ]]> | Original: | |||
| </artwork> | Refining further, a recovery graph is defined as the coalescence of | |||
| </figure> | the collection of all the feasible DetNet Paths that a packet for | |||
| which a flow is assigned to the recovery graph may be forwarded | ||||
| along. | ||||
| <t> | Perhaps: | |||
| Refining further, a recovery graph is defined as the coalescence of | ||||
| all the feasible DetNet Paths that a packet with an assigned flow | ||||
| may be forwarded along. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | ||||
| Refining further, a recovery graph is defined as the coalescence of the coll ection | Refining further, a recovery graph is defined as the coalescence of the coll ection | |||
| of all the feasible DetNet Paths that a packet for which a flow is assigned to the | of all the feasible DetNet Paths that a packet for which a flow is assigned to the | |||
| recovery graph may be forwarded along. | recovery graph may be forwarded along. | |||
| A packet that is assigned to the recovery graph experiences one of the feasi ble | A packet that is assigned to the recovery graph experiences one of the feasi ble | |||
| DetNet Paths based on the current selection by the PLR at the time the | DetNet Paths based on the current selection by the PLR at the time the | |||
| packet traverses the network. | packet traverses the network. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Refining even further, the feasible DetNet Paths within the recovery graph m ay or may | Refining even further, the feasible DetNet Paths within the recovery graph m ay or may | |||
| not be computed in advance, but decided upon the detection of a change from | not be computed in advance; instead, they may be decided upon the detection of a change from | |||
| a clean slate. | a clean slate. | |||
| Furthermore, the PLR decision may be distributed, which yields a large | Furthermore, the PLR decision may be distributed, which yields a large | |||
| combination of possible and dependent decisions, with no node in the network | combination of possible and dependent decisions, with no node in the network | |||
| capable of reporting which is the current DetNet Path within the recovery gr aph. | capable of reporting which is the current DetNet Path within the recovery gr aph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In DetNet <xref target="RFC8655"/> terms, a recovery graph has the following | In DetNet <xref target="RFC8655"/> terms, a recovery graph has the following | |||
| properties: | properties: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <ul> | <ul> | |||
| <li> | <li> | |||
| A recovery graph is a Layer-3 abstraction built upon IP links between router s. | A recovery graph is a Layer 3 abstraction built upon IP links between router s. | |||
| A router may form multiple IP links over a single radio interface. | A router may form multiple IP links over a single radio interface. | |||
| </li><li> | </li><li> | |||
| A recovery graph has one Ingress and one Egress node, which operate as DetNe t Edge | A recovery graph has one Ingress and one Egress node, which operate as DetNe t Edge | |||
| nodes. | nodes. | |||
| </li><li> | </li><li> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] The bulleted list in Section 3.3.2 lists the properties of a | ||||
| recovery graph. We have the following questions. | ||||
| a) Is "graph of a recovery graph" correct here? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| * The graph of a recovery graph is reversible, meaning that packets | ||||
| can be routed against the flow of data packets, e.g., to carry OAM | ||||
| measurements or control messages back to the Ingress. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| * A recovery graph is reversible, meaning that packets | ||||
| can be routed against the flow of data packets, e.g., to carry OAM | ||||
| measurements or control messages back to the Ingress. | ||||
| b) In the first bullet below, should "that graph" be updated to "a recovery | ||||
| graph"? In the second bullet below, should "of the graph" be updated to "of a | ||||
| recovery graph"? Or is the current correct in both instances? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| * The vertices of that graph are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate at | ||||
| the DetNet Service sub-layer and provide the PREOF functions. | ||||
| * The topological edges of the graph are strict sequences of DetNet | ||||
| Transit nodes that operate at the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| * The vertices of a recovery graph are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate at | ||||
| the DetNet Service sub-layer and provide the PREOF functions. | ||||
| * The topological edges of a recovery graph are strict sequences of DetNet | ||||
| Transit nodes that operate at the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| The graph of a recovery graph is reversible, meaning that packets can be rou ted against | The graph of a recovery graph is reversible, meaning that packets can be rou ted against | |||
| the flow of data packets, e.g., to carry OAM measurements or control | the flow of data packets, e.g., to carry OAM measurements or control | |||
| messages back to the Ingress. | messages back to the Ingress. | |||
| </li><li> | </li><li> | |||
| The vertices of that graph are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate at the | The vertices of that graph are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate at the | |||
| DetNet Service sub-layer and provide the PREOF functions. | DetNet Service sub-layer and provide the PREOF functions. | |||
| </li><li> | </li><li> | |||
| The topological edges of the graph are strict sequences of DetNet Transit | The topological edges of the graph are strict sequences of DetNet Transit | |||
| nodes that operate at the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. | nodes that operate at the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer. | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| </ul> | </ul> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| <xref target='TRK'/> illustrates the generic concept of a recovery graph, | <xref target='TRK'/> illustrates the generic concept of a recovery graph, | |||
| between an Ingress Node and an Egress Node. | between an Ingress Node and an Egress Node. | |||
| The recovery graph is composed of forward protection paths and forward or cr | The recovery graph is composed of forward protection paths, forward Segments | |||
| ossing | , and crossing | |||
| Segments (see the definition for those terms in the next sections). | Segments (see the definitions of those terms in the next sections). | |||
| The recovery graph contains at least 2 protection paths as a main path and a | The recovery graph contains at least two protection paths: a main path and a | |||
| backup path. | backup path. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor='TRK'><name>A Recovery Graph and its Components</name> | ||||
| <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] FYI - For Figure 3, we moved the information about the segments | ||||
| and paths out of the figure. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <figure anchor='TRK'><name>A Recovery Graph and Its Components</name> | ||||
| <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[ | ||||
| ------------------- forward direction ----------------------> | ------------------- forward direction ----------------------> | |||
| a ==> b ==> C -=- F ==> G ==> h T1 I: Ingress | a ==> b ==> C -=- F ==> G ==> h T1 | |||
| / \ / | \ / E: Egress | / \ / | \ / | |||
| I o n E -=- T2 T1, T2, T3: | I o n E -=- T2 | |||
| \ / \ | / \ External | \ / \ | / \ | |||
| p ==> q ==> R -=- T ==> U ==> v T3 Targets | p ==> q ==> R -=- T ==> U ==> v T3 | |||
| I: Ingress | ||||
| E: Egress | ||||
| T1, T2, T3: external targets | ||||
| Uppercase: DetNet Relay Nodes | Uppercase: DetNet Relay Nodes | |||
| Lowercase: DetNet Transit nodes | Lowercase: DetNet Transit nodes | |||
| I ==> a ==> b ==> C : A forward Segment to targets F and o | ||||
| C ==> o ==> T: A forward Segment to target T (and/or U) | ||||
| G | n | U : A crossing Segment to targets G or U | ||||
| I -> F -> E : A forward Protection Path to targets T1, T2, and T3 | ||||
| I, a, b, C, F, G, h, E : a path to T1, T2, and/or T3 | ||||
| I, p, q, R, o, F, G, h, E : segment-crossing protection path | ||||
| ]]></artwork> | ]]></artwork> | |||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t>Of note:</t> | ||||
| <dl newline="false" spacing="normal"> | ||||
| <dt>I ==> a ==> b ==> C:</dt><dd>A forward Segment to targets F and o</dd> | ||||
| <dt>C ==> o ==> T:</dt><dd>A forward Segment to target T (and/or U)</dd> | ||||
| <dt>G | n | U:</dt><dd>A crossing Segment to targets G or U</dd> | ||||
| <dt>I -> F -> E:</dt><dd>A forward protection path to targets T1, T2, and T3</ | ||||
| dd> | ||||
| <dt>I, a, b, C, F, G, h, E:</dt><dd>A path to T1, T2, and/or T3</dd> | ||||
| <dt>I, p, q, R, o, F, G, h, E:</dt><dd>A segment-crossing protection path</dd> | ||||
| </dl> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Forward and Crossing</name> | <section><name>Forward and Crossing</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Forward refers to progress towards the recovery graph Egress. Forward links are | Forward refers to progress towards the Egress of the recovery graph. Forward links are | |||
| directional, and packets that are forwarded along the recovery graph can onl y be | directional, and packets that are forwarded along the recovery graph can onl y be | |||
| transmitted along the link direction. Crossing links are bidirectional, | transmitted along the link direction. Crossing links are bidirectional, | |||
| meaning that they can be used in both directions, though a given packet may | meaning that they can be used in both directions, though a given packet may | |||
| use the link in one direction only. A Segment can be forward, in which | use the link in one direction only. A Segment can be forward, in which | |||
| case it is composed of forward links only, or crossing, in which | case it is composed of forward links only, or it can be crossing, in which | |||
| case it is composed of crossing links only. A Protection Path is always forw | case it is composed of crossing links only. A protection path is always forw | |||
| ard, | ard, | |||
| meaning that it is composed of forward links and Segments. | meaning that it is composed of forward links and Segments. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Protection Path</name> | <section><name>Protection Path</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| An end-to-end forward path between the Ingress and Egress Nodes of a | A protection path is an end-to-end forward path between the Ingress and Egre ss Nodes of a | |||
| recovery graph. A protection path in a recovery graph is expressed as a stri ct sequence | recovery graph. A protection path in a recovery graph is expressed as a stri ct sequence | |||
| of DetNet Relay Nodes or as a loose sequence of DetNet Relay Nodes that are | of DetNet Relay Nodes or as a loose sequence of DetNet Relay Nodes that are | |||
| joined by recovery graph Segments. Background information on the | joined by Segments in the recovery graph. Background information on the | |||
| concepts related to protection paths can be found in <xref | concepts related to protection paths can be found in <xref | |||
| target="RFC4427"/> and <xref target="RFC6378"/> | target="RFC4427"/> and <xref target="RFC6378"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Segment</name> | <section><name>Segment</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A strict sequence of DetNet Transit nodes between 2 DetNet Relay Nodes; a | A Segment is a strict sequence of DetNet Transit nodes between two DetNet Re lay Nodes; a | |||
| Segment of a recovery graph is composed topologically of two vertices of the | Segment of a recovery graph is composed topologically of two vertices of the | |||
| recovery graph and one edge of the recovery graph between those vertices. | recovery graph and one edge of the recovery graph between those vertices. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| </section><!--Path and recovery graphs--> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Deterministic Networking</name> | <section><name>Deterministic Networking</name> | |||
| <t>This document reuses the terminology in section 2 of | <t>This document reuses the terminology in | |||
| <xref target="RFC8557"/> and section 4.1.2 of <xref target="RFC8655"/> | <xref target="RFC8557" section="2"/> and <xref target="RFC8655" section="4.1 | |||
| for deterministic networking and deterministic networks. | .2"/> | |||
| for deterministic networking and deterministic networks. This documents also | ||||
| uses the following terms. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <section><name>The DetNet Planes</name> | <section><name>The DetNet Planes</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| <xref target="RFC8655"/> defines three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, | <xref target="RFC8655"/> defines three planes: the Application (User) Plane, the Controller Plane, | |||
| and the Network Plane. | and the Network Plane. | |||
| The DetNet Network Plane is composed of a Data Plane (packet forwarding) and an | The DetNet Network Plane is composed of a Data Plane (packet forwarding) and an | |||
| Operational Plane where OAM operations take place. | Operational Plane where OAM operations take place. | |||
| In the Network Plane, the DetNet Service sub-layer | In the Network Plane, the DetNet Service sub-layer | |||
| focuses on flow protection (e.g., using redundancy) and can be fully operated | focuses on flow protection (e.g., using redundancy) and can be fully operated | |||
| at Layer-3, while the DetNet forwarding sub-layer establishes the paths, | at Layer 3, while the DetNet forwarding sub-layer establishes the paths, | |||
| associates the flows to the paths, and ensures the availability of the | associates the flows to the paths, ensures the availability of the | |||
| necessary resources, leverages Layer-2 functionalities for timely delivery | necessary resources, and leverages Layer 2 functionalities for timely deliver | |||
| to the next DetNet system, more in <xref target='problem'/>. | y | |||
| to the next DetNet system. For more information, see <xref target='problem'/> | ||||
| . | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Flow</name> | <section><name>Flow</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A collection of consecutive IP packets defined by the upper layers and | A flow is a collection of consecutive IP packets defined by the upper layers | |||
| signaled by the same 5 or 6-tuple (see section 5.1 of | and | |||
| <xref target="RFC8939"/>). Packets of the same flow must be placed | signaled by the same 5-tuple or 6-tuple (see | |||
| <xref target="RFC8939" section="5.1"/>). Packets of the same flow must be pl | ||||
| aced | ||||
| on the same recovery graph to receive an equivalent treatment from Ingress t o Egress | on the same recovery graph to receive an equivalent treatment from Ingress t o Egress | |||
| within the recovery graph. Multiple flows may be transported along the same recovery graph. | within the recovery graph. Multiple flows may be transported along the same recovery graph. | |||
| The DetNet Path that is selected for the flow may change over time under the | The DetNet Path that is selected for the flow may change over time under the | |||
| control of the PLR. | control of the PLR. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Residence Time</name> | <section><name>Residence Time</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A residence time (RT) is defined as the time interval between when the recep tion | A residence time (RT) is defined as the time interval between when the recep tion | |||
| of a packet starts and the transmission of the packet begins. In the | of a packet starts and the transmission of the packet begins. In the | |||
| context of RAW, RT is useful for a transit node, not ingress or egress. | context of RAW, RT is useful for a transit nodes, not ingress or egress nodes . | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>L3 Deterministic Flow Identifier </name> | <section><name>L3 Deterministic Flow Identifier </name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] FYI - To improve clarity, we moved the first sentence below to a | ||||
| parenthetical within the second sentence. Please let us know any | ||||
| objections. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| See section 3.3 of [DetNet-DP]. The classic IP 5-tuple that | ||||
| identifies a flow comprises the source IP, destination IP, source | ||||
| port, destination port, and the upper layer protocol (ULP). DetNet | ||||
| uses a 6-tuple where the extra field is the DSCP field in the packet. | ||||
| The IPv6 flow label is not used for that purpose. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The classic IP 5-tuple that | ||||
| identifies a flow comprises the source IP, destination IP, source | ||||
| port, destination port, and the Upper-Layer Protocol (ULP). DetNet | ||||
| uses a 6-tuple where the extra field is the Differentiated Services | ||||
| Code Point (DSCP) field in the packet (see Section 3.3 of [DetNet-DP]). | ||||
| The IPv6 flow label is not used for that purpose. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| See section 3.3 of <xref target="RFC8938"/>. The classic IP 5-tuple that | The classic IP 5-tuple that | |||
| identifies a flow comprises the source IP, destination IP, source port, | identifies a flow comprises the source IP, destination IP, source port, | |||
| destination port, and | destination port, and | |||
| the upper layer protocol (ULP). DetNet uses a 6-tuple where the extra field | the Upper-Layer Protocol (ULP). DetNet uses a 6-tuple where the extra field | |||
| is the DSCP field in the packet. The IPv6 flow label is not used for that | is the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) field in the packet (see < | |||
| xref target="RFC8938" section="3.3"/>). The IPv6 flow label is not used for that | ||||
| purpose. | purpose. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>TSN</name> | <section><name>Time-Sensitive Networking</name> | |||
| <t> | ||||
| TSN stands for Time-Sensitive Networking and denotes the efforts at IEEE | <!-- [rfced] Updates to Section 3.4.5 | |||
| a) We made some updates to this sentence (see Current text below). Would | ||||
| adding a citation to [TSN] also be helpful here (see Perhaps text below)? | ||||
| Also, please review "the efforts at IEEE 802"? Is the intended meaning "the | ||||
| IEEE efforts"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| 3.4.5. TSN | ||||
| TSN stands for Time-Sensitive Networking and denotes the efforts at | ||||
| IEEE 802 for deterministic networking, originally for use on | ||||
| Ethernet. | ||||
| Current: | ||||
| 3.4.5. Time-Sensitive Networking | ||||
| Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) denotes the efforts at IEEE 802 regarding | ||||
| for deterministic networking, originally for use on | ||||
| Ethernet. See [TSN]. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| 3.4.5. Time-Sensitive Networking | ||||
| Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) denotes the IEEE efforts regarding | ||||
| for deterministic networking, originally for use on | ||||
| Ethernet. See [TSN]. | ||||
| b) May we update "the selected RAW technologies [RAW-TECHNOS]" as follows? Or | ||||
| is another meaning intended? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Wireless TSN (WTSN) denotes extensions of the TSN work on | ||||
| wireless media such as the selected RAW technologies [RAW-TECHNOS]. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Wireless TSN (WTSN) denotes extensions of the TSN work on | ||||
| wireless media, such as the RAW technologies described in [RAW-TECHNOS]. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | ||||
| Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) denotes the efforts at IEEE | ||||
| 802 for deterministic networking, originally for use on Ethernet. Wireless | 802 for deterministic networking, originally for use on Ethernet. Wireless | |||
| TSN (WTSN) denotes extensions of the TSN work on wireless media such as | TSN (WTSN) denotes extensions of the TSN work on wireless media such as | |||
| the selected RAW technologies <xref target="I-D.ietf-raw-technologies"/>. | the selected RAW technologies <xref target="RFC9913"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Lower-Layer API</name> | <section><name>Lower-Layer API</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In addition, RAW includes the concept of a lower-layer API (LL | RAW includes the concept of a lower-layer API (LL | |||
| API), that provides an interface between the | API) that provides an interface between the | |||
| lower layer (e.g., wireless) technology and the DetNet layers. The LL API is | lower-layer (e.g., wireless) technology and the DetNet layers. The LL API is | |||
| technology dependent as what the lower layers expose towards the DetNet laye rs may vary. | technology dependent as what the lower layers expose towards the DetNet laye rs may vary. | |||
| Furthermore, the different RAW technologies are equipped with different | Furthermore, different RAW technologies are equipped with | |||
| reliability features, e.g., short range broadcast, Multiple-User, | different reliability features (e.g., short-range broadcast, | |||
| Multiple-Input, and Multiple-Output (MUMIMO), PHY rate and | Multiple User - Multiple Input Multiple Output (MU-MIMO), PHY rate | |||
| other Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) adaptation, coding and retransmissions m | and other Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) adaptation, coding and | |||
| ethods, constructive | retransmissions methods, and constructive interference and overhearing; | |||
| interference and overhearing, see <xref target="I-D.ietf-raw-technologies"/> | see <xref target="RFC9913"/> for more details). | |||
| for details. | ||||
| The LL API enables interactions between the | The LL API enables interactions between the | |||
| reliability functions provided by the lower layer and the | reliability functions provided by the lower layer and the | |||
| reliability functions provided by DetNet. That is, the LL API makes | reliability functions provided by DetNet. That is, the LL API makes | |||
| cross-layer optimization possible for the reliability functions of | cross-layer optimization possible for the reliability functions of | |||
| different layers depending on the actual exposure provided via the LL API | different layers depending on the actual exposure provided via the LL API | |||
| by the given RAW technology. | by the given RAW technology. | |||
| The <xref target="RFC8175"> Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) </xref> is | The <xref format="title" target="RFC8175"/> <xref target="RFC8175"/> is an | |||
| an | example of a protocol that can be used to implement the LL API. | |||
| example protocol that can be used to implement the LL API. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| </section><!--Deterministic Networking --> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Reliability and Availability</name> | <section><name>Reliability and Availability</name> | |||
| <t> | <t>This document uses the following terms relating to reliability and | |||
| In the context of the RAW work, Reliability and Availability are defined as | availability in the context of the RAW work. | |||
| follows: | </t> | |||
| </t> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] This sentence is difficult to parse. How does "the application | ||||
| flow" connect to the rest of the sentence? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| In the context of RAW, an SLA (service level agreement) is a contract | ||||
| between a provider (the network) and a client, the application flow, | ||||
| defining measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive | ||||
| losses, and packet delivery ratio (PDR). | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| In the context of RAW, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is a contract | ||||
| between a provider (the network) and a client that defines the application fl | ||||
| ow | ||||
| and measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive | ||||
| losses, and Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). | ||||
| Or: | ||||
| In the context of RAW, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is a contract | ||||
| between a provider (the network) and a client (the application flow) that def | ||||
| ines | ||||
| measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive | ||||
| losses, and Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <section><name>Service Level Agreement</name> | <section><name>Service Level Agreement</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the context of RAW, an SLA (service level agreement) is a contract | In the context of RAW, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is a contract | |||
| between a provider (the network) and a client, the application flow, | between a provider (the network) and a client, the application flow, | |||
| defining measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive losses, | defining measurable metrics such as latency boundaries, consecutive losses, | |||
| and packet delivery ratio (PDR). | and Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Service Level Objective</name> | <section><name>Service Level Objective</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A service level objective (SLO) is one term in the SLA, for which specific | A Service Level Objective (SLO) is one term in the SLA, for which specific | |||
| network setting and operations are implemented. For instance, a dynamic | network setting and operations are implemented. For instance, a dynamic | |||
| tuning of the packet redundancy addresses an SLO of consecutive losses in | tuning of packet redundancy addresses an SLO of consecutive losses in | |||
| a row by augmenting the chances of delivery of a packet that follows a loss. | a row by augmenting the chances of delivery of a packet that follows a loss. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Service Level Indicator</name> | <section><name>Service Level Indicator</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will "losses in a row as time series" be clear to readers? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| It can be for instance, the statistics of | ||||
| individual losses and losses in a row as time series. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| For instance, it can be the statistics of | ||||
| individual losses or losses in a row during a certain amount of time. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A service level indicator (SLI) measures the compliance of an SLO to the | A Service Level Indicator (SLI) measures the compliance of an SLO to the | |||
| terms of the contract. It can be for instance, the statistics of individual | terms of the contract. For instance, it can be the statistics of individual | |||
| losses and losses in a row as time series. | losses and losses in a row as time series. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name> Precision Availability Metrics</name> | <section><name>Precision Availability Metrics</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Precision Availability Metrics (PAMs) <xref target="RFC9544"/> aim | Precision Availability Metrics (PAMs) <xref target="RFC9544"/> aim | |||
| at capturing service levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which | to capture service levels for a flow, specifically the degree to which | |||
| the flow complies with the SLOs that are in effect. | the flow complies with the SLOs that are in effect. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Reliability</name> | <section><name>Reliability</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Reliability is a measure of the probability that an item (e.g., system, | Reliability is a measure of the probability that an item (e.g., system or | |||
| network) will perform its intended function with no failure for a stated | network) will perform its intended function with no failure for a stated | |||
| period of time (or a stated number of demands or load) under stated environme ntal | period of time (or for a stated number of demands or load) under stated envir onmental | |||
| conditions. In other words, reliability is the probability that an item | conditions. In other words, reliability is the probability that an item | |||
| will be in an uptime state (i.e., fully operational or ready to perform) | will be in an uptime state (i.e., fully operational or ready to perform) | |||
| for a stated mission, e.g., to provide an SLA. See more in | for a stated mission (e.g., to provide an SLA). See more in | |||
| <xref target="NASA1"/>. | <xref target="NASA1"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <section><name>Availability</name> | <section><name>Availability</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] This sentence may be difficult to read because of the | ||||
| parentheticals. Also, does the text starting with "an uptime | ||||
| state..." refer to availability or mission readiness? Please review. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Availability is the probability of an items (e.g., a network's) | ||||
| mission readiness (e.g., to provide an SLA), an uptime state with the | ||||
| likelihood of a recoverable downtime state. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Availability is the probability of an item's | ||||
| mission readiness (e.g., probability of a network to provide an SLA); | ||||
| it is an uptime state with the | ||||
| likelihood of a recoverable downtime state. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Availability is the probability of an item’s (e.g., a network’s) mission | Availability is the probability of an item's (e.g., a network's) | |||
| readiness (e.g., to provide an SLA), an uptime state with the likelihood | mission readiness (e.g., to provide an SLA), an uptime state with the | |||
| of a recoverable downtime state. Availability is expressed as | likelihood of a recoverable downtime state. | |||
| Availability is expressed as | ||||
| (uptime)/(uptime+downtime). Note that it is availability that addresses | (uptime)/(uptime+downtime). Note that it is availability that addresses | |||
| downtime (including time for maintenance, repair, and replacement activities) | downtime (including time for maintenance, repair, and replacement activities) | |||
| and not reliability. See more in <xref target="NASA2"/>. | and not reliability. See more in <xref target="NASA2"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| </section><!--Reliability and Availability--> | </section> | |||
| </section> | ||||
| </section><!-- Terminology --> | ||||
| <!-- 1111111111111111 --> | ||||
| <section anchor="raw" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="raw" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Reliable and Available Wireless</name> | <name>Reliable and Available Wireless</name> | |||
| <!-- 2222222222222222 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>High Availability Engineering Principles</name> | <name>High Availability Engineering Principles</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The reliability criteria of a critical system pervade through its elements, | The reliability criteria of a critical system pervade its elements, | |||
| and if the system comprises a data network and then the data network is also | and if the system comprises a data network, then the data network is also | |||
| subject to the inherited reliability and availability criteria. | subject to the inherited reliability and availability criteria. | |||
| It is only natural to consider the art of high availability engineering and | It is only natural to consider the art of high availability engineering and | |||
| apply it to wireless communications in the context of RAW. | apply it to wireless communications in the context of RAW. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| There are three principles (pillars) of high availability engineering: | There are three principles (pillars) of high availability engineering: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <ol spacing="compact"> | <ol> | |||
| <li>elimination of each single point of failure</li> | <li>elimination of each single point of failure</li> | |||
| <li>reliable crossover</li> | <li>reliable crossover</li> | |||
| <li>prompt detection of failures as they occur</li> | <li>prompt detection of failures as they occur</li> | |||
| </ol> | </ol> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| These principles are common to all high availability systems, not just ones | These principles are common to all high availability systems, not just ones | |||
| with Internet technology at the center. Examples of both non-Internet and | with Internet technology at the center. Both non-Internet and | |||
| Internet are included. | Internet examples are included. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- 333333333333333333333 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Elimination of Single Points of Failure</name> | <name>Elimination of Single Points of Failure</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Physical and logical components in a system happen to fail, either as the | Physical and logical components in a system happen to fail, either as the | |||
| effect of wear and tear, when used beyond acceptable limits, or due to a | effect of wear and tear, when used beyond acceptable limits, or due to a | |||
| software bug. | software bug. | |||
| It is necessary to decouple component failure from system failure to avoid | It is necessary to decouple component failure from system failure to avoid | |||
| the latter. | the latter. | |||
| This allows failed components to be restored while the rest of the system | This allows failed components to be restored while the rest of the system | |||
| continues to function. | continues to function. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| IP Routers leverage routing protocols to reroute to alternate routes in case | IP routers leverage routing protocols to reroute to alternate routes in case | |||
| of a failure. When links are cabled through the same conduit, they form a | of a failure. When links are cabled through the same conduit, they form a | |||
| shared risk link group (SRLG), and share the same fate if the conduit is | Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) and share the same fate if the conduit is | |||
| cut, making the reroute operation ineffective. | cut, making the reroute operation ineffective. | |||
| The same effect can happen with virtual links that end up in a same | The same effect can happen with virtual links that end up in the same | |||
| physical transport through the intricacies of nested encapsulation. | physical transport through the intricacies of nested encapsulation. | |||
| In a same fashion, an interferer or an obstacle may affect multiple | In the same fashion, an interferer or an obstacle may affect multiple | |||
| wireless transmissions at the same time, even between different sets of peer s. | wireless transmissions at the same time, even between different sets of peer s. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated these sentences as follows to improve | ||||
| readability of "it is thus required to use" and "it is also required to | ||||
| use". Let us know any concerns. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| For high availability, it is thus required to use | ||||
| physically link-disjoint and node-disjoint paths; in the wireless | ||||
| space, it is also required to use the highest possible degree of | ||||
| diversity (time, space, code, frequency, and channel width) in the | ||||
| transmissions over the air to combat the additional causes of | ||||
| transmission loss. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Thus, for high availability, the use of | ||||
| physically link-disjoint and node-disjoint paths is required; in the wireless | ||||
| space, the use of the highest possible degree of | ||||
| diversity (time, space, code, frequency, and channel width) in the | ||||
| transmissions over the air is also required to combat the additional causes o | ||||
| f | ||||
| transmission loss. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Intermediate network Nodes such as routers, switches and APs, wire bundles, | Intermediate network nodes (such as routers, switches and APs, wire bundles, | |||
| and the air medium itself can become single points of failure. For High | and the air medium itself) can become single points of failure. Thus, for hi | |||
| Availability, it is thus required to use physically link-disjoint and Node-d | gh | |||
| isjoint | availability, the use of physically link-disjoint and node-disjoint | |||
| paths; in the wireless space, it is also required to use the highest | paths is required; in the wireless space, the use of the highest | |||
| possible degree of diversity (time, space, code, frequency, channel width) | possible degree of diversity (time, space, code, frequency, and channel widt | |||
| in the transmissions over the air to combat the additional causes of | h) | |||
| in the transmissions over the air is also required to combat the additional | ||||
| causes of | ||||
| transmission loss. | transmission loss. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| From an economics standpoint, executing this principle properly generally | From an economics standpoint, executing this principle properly generally | |||
| increases capital expense because of the redundant equipment. In a | increases capital expense because of the redundant equipment. In a | |||
| constrained network where the waste of energy and bandwidth should be | constrained network where the waste of energy and bandwidth should be | |||
| minimized, an excessive use of redundant links must be avoided; for RAW this | minimized, an excessive use of redundant links must be avoided; for RAW, thi s | |||
| means that the extra bandwidth must be used wisely and efficiently. | means that the extra bandwidth must be used wisely and efficiently. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Elimination of Single Points of Failure--> | ||||
| <!-- 333333333333333333333 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Reliable Crossover</name> | <name>Reliable Crossover</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Having backup equipment has a limited value unless it can be reliably | Backup equipment has limited value unless it can be reliably | |||
| switched into use within the down-time parameters. | switched into use within the downtime parameters. | |||
| IP Routers execute reliable crossover continuously because | IP routers execute reliable crossover continuously because | |||
| the routers use any alternate routes that are available <xref target= | the routers use any alternate routes that are available <xref target= | |||
| "RFC0791"/>. This is due to the stateless nature of IP datagrams and the | "RFC0791"/>. This is due to the stateless nature of IP datagrams and the | |||
| dissociation of the datagrams from the forwarding routes they take. | dissociation of the datagrams from the forwarding routes they take. | |||
| The <xref target="RFC5714">"IP Fast Reroute Framework"</xref> analyzes | "IP Fast Reroute Framework" <xref target="RFC5714"/> analyzes | |||
| mechanisms for fast failure detection and path repair for IP Fast-Reroute (F | mechanisms for fast failure detection and path repair for IP Fast Reroute (F | |||
| RR), | RR) | |||
| and discusses the case of multiple failures and SRLG. Examples of FRR | and discusses the case of multiple failures and SRLG. Examples of FRR | |||
| techniques include Remote Loop-Free Alternate <xref target="RFC7490"/> and | techniques include Remote Loop-Free Alternate <xref target="RFC7490"/> and | |||
| backup label-switched path (LSP) tunnels for the local repair of LSP tunnels | backup Label Switched Path (LSP) tunnels for the local repair of LSP tunnels | |||
| using RSVP-TE <xref target="RFC4090"/>. | using RSVP-TE <xref target="RFC4090"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Deterministic flows, on the contrary, are attached to specific paths where | Deterministic flows, on the contrary, are attached to specific paths where | |||
| dedicated resources are reserved for each flow. Therefore, each DetNet path | dedicated resources are reserved for each flow. Therefore, each DetNet path | |||
| must inherently provide sufficient redundancy to provide the assured SLOs | must inherently provide sufficient redundancy to provide the assured SLOs | |||
| at all times. | at all times. | |||
| The DetNet PREOF typically leverages 1+1 redundancy whereby a packet is sent | The DetNet PREOF typically leverages 1+1 redundancy whereby a packet is sent | |||
| twice, over non-congruent paths. This avoids the gap during the fast reroute | twice, over non-congruent paths. This avoids the gap during the FRR | |||
| operation, but doubles the traffic in the network. | operation but doubles the traffic in the network. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the case of RAW, the expectation is that multiple transient faults may | In the case of RAW, the expectation is that multiple transient faults may | |||
| happen in overlapping time windows, in which case the 1+1 redundancy with | happen in overlapping time windows, in which case the 1+1 redundancy with | |||
| delayed reestablishment of the second path does not provide the required | delayed reestablishment of the second path does not provide the required | |||
| guarantees. | guarantees. | |||
| The Data Plane must be configured with a sufficient degree of | The Data Plane must be configured with a sufficient degree of | |||
| redundancy to select an alternate redundant path immediately upon a fault, | redundancy to select an alternate redundant path immediately upon a fault, | |||
| without the need for a slow intervention from the Controller Plane. | without the need for a slow intervention from the Controller Plane. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Reliable Crossover--> | ||||
| <!-- 333333333333333333333 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Prompt Notification of Failures</name> | <name>Prompt Notification of Failures</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The execution of the two above principles is likely to render a system where | The execution of the two above principles is likely to render a system where | |||
| the end user rarely sees a failure. But a failure that occurs must still be detected in order to direct maintenance. | the end user rarely sees a failure. However, a failure that occurs must stil l be detected in order to direct maintenance. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| There are many reasons for system monitoring (FCAPS for fault, configuration | There are many reasons for system monitoring (Fault, Configuration, Accounti | |||
| , | ng, Performance, and Security (FCAPS) is a handy mental checklist), but fault | |||
| accounting, performance, security is a handy mental checklist) but fault | monitoring is a sufficient reason. | |||
| monitoring is sufficient reason. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| <xref target="RFC9522"> | "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering" <xref target="RFC9 | |||
| "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering"</xref> discusses | 522"/> discusses | |||
| the importance of measurement for network protection, and provides an | the importance of measurement for network protection and provides an | |||
| abstract method for network survivability with the analysis of a traffic | abstract method for network survivability with the analysis of a traffic | |||
| matrix as observed via a network management YANG data model, probing techniqu es, | matrix as observed via a network management YANG data model, probing techniqu es, | |||
| file transfers, IGP link state advertisements, and more. | file transfers, IGP link state advertisements, and more. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Those measurements are needed in the context of RAW to inform the controller | Those measurements are needed in the context of RAW to inform the controller | |||
| and make the long-term reactive decision to rebuild a recovery graph based o n | and make the long-term reactive decision to rebuild a recovery graph based o n | |||
| statistical and aggregated information. RAW itself operates in the DetNet | statistical and aggregated information. RAW itself operates in the DetNet | |||
| Network | Network | |||
| Plane at a faster time-scale with live information on speed, state, etc. | Plane at a faster timescale with live information on speed, state, etc. | |||
| This live information can be obtained directly from the lower layer, e.g., | This live information can be obtained directly from the lower layer (e.g., | |||
| using L2 triggers, read from a protocol such as DLEP, | using L2 triggers), read from a protocol such as DLEP, | |||
| or transported over multiple hops using OAM and reverse OAM, | or transported over multiple hops using OAM and reverse OAM, | |||
| as illustrated in <xref target="Figlearn"/>. | as illustrated in <xref target="Figlearn"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Prompt Notification of Failures--> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Reliability Engineering--> | ||||
| <!-- 22222222222222222222 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking</name> | <name>Applying Reliability Concepts to Networking</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The terms Reliability and Availability are defined for use in RAW in | The terms "reliability" and "availability" are defined for use in RAW in | |||
| <xref target="terms"/> and the reader is invited to read | <xref target="terms"/>, and the reader is invited to read | |||
| <xref target="NASA1"/> and <xref target="NASA2"/> | <xref target="NASA1"/> and <xref target="NASA2"/> | |||
| for more details on the general definition of Reliability. | for more details on the general definition of reliability. | |||
| Practically speaking, a number of nines is often used to indicate the | Practically speaking, a number of nines is often used to indicate the | |||
| reliability of a data link, e.g., 5 nines indicate a | reliability of a data link (e.g., 5 nines indicate a | |||
| Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) of 99.999%. | Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) of 99.999%). | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| This number is typical in a wired | This number is typical in a wired | |||
| environment where the loss is due to a random event such as a solar particle | environment where the loss is due to a random event such as a solar particle | |||
| that affects the transmission of a particular packet, but does not affect th | that affects the transmission of a particular packet but does not affect the | |||
| e | previous packet, the next packet, or packets transmitted on other links. Not | |||
| previous or next packet, nor packets transmitted on other links. Note that t | e that the | |||
| he | ||||
| QoS requirements in RAW may include a bounded latency, and a packet that | QoS requirements in RAW may include a bounded latency, and a packet that | |||
| arrives too late is a fault and not considered as delivered. | arrives too late is a fault and not considered as delivered. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] FYI - To make this text easier to read and understand, we updated | ||||
| the "e.g., using redundancy..." phrase to be two separate sentences. Please | ||||
| review and let us know any objections. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Packet loss cannot be fully avoided and the systems are built to resist | ||||
| some loss, e.g., using redundancy with Retries (as in HARQ), Packet | ||||
| Replication and Elimination (PRE) FEC, Network Coding (e.g., using FEC with | ||||
| SCHC [RFC8724] fragments), or, in a typical control loop, by linear | ||||
| interpolation from the previous measurements. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Packet loss cannot be fully | ||||
| avoided, and the systems are built to resist some loss. This can be | ||||
| done by using redundancy with retries (as in HARQ), Packet | ||||
| Replication and Elimination (PRE) FEC, and Network Coding (e.g., | ||||
| using FEC with Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) [RFC8724] | ||||
| fragments). Also, in a typical control loop, linear interpolation | ||||
| from the previous measurements can be used. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| For a periodic networking pattern such as an automation control loop, this | For a periodic networking pattern such as an automation control loop, this | |||
| number is proportional to the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF). | number is proportional to the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF). | |||
| When a single fault can have dramatic consequences, the MTBF expresses the | When a single fault can have dramatic consequences, the MTBF expresses the | |||
| chances that the unwanted fault event occurs. In data networks, | chances that the unwanted fault event occurs. In data networks, | |||
| this is rarely the case. Packet loss cannot be fully avoided and the | this is rarely the case. Packet loss cannot be fully avoided, and the | |||
| systems are built to resist some loss, e.g., using redundancy with Retries | systems are built to resist some loss. This can be done by using redundancy | |||
| (as in HARQ), Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) FEC, Network Coding ( | with retries | |||
| e.g., using | (as in HARQ), Packet Replication and Elimination (PRE) FEC, and Network Codi | |||
| FEC with SCHC <xref target="RFC8724"/> fragments), or, in a typical control | ng (e.g., using | |||
| loop, by linear interpolation from the previous measurements. | FEC with Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) <xref target="RFC8724"/> f | |||
| ragments). Also, in a typical control | ||||
| loop, linear interpolation from the previous measurements can be used. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| But the linear interpolation method cannot resist multiple consecutive | <!-- [rfced] Would updating the text starting with "as a guarantee that | |||
| this..." as follows make this test more clear and concise? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| But the linear interpolation method cannot resist multiple | ||||
| consecutive losses, and a high MTBF is desired as a guarantee that | ||||
| this does not happen, in other words that the number of losses-in- | ||||
| a-row can be bounded. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| However, the linear interpolation method cannot resist multiple | ||||
| consecutive losses, and a high MTBF is desired as a guarantee that | ||||
| the number of losses in a row is bounded. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] The following text points to Section 5.9.5 of RFC 8175 | ||||
| [DLEP]; however, RFC 8175 does not have a Section 5.9.5. What section | ||||
| would you like to point to? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| In that case, what is really desired is a | ||||
| Maximum Consecutive Loss (MCL). (See also Section 5.9.5 of [DLEP].) | ||||
| --> | ||||
| However, the linear interpolation method cannot resist multiple consecutive | ||||
| losses, and a high MTBF is desired as a guarantee that this does not happen, | losses, and a high MTBF is desired as a guarantee that this does not happen, | |||
| in other words that the number of losses-in-a-row can be bounded. In that ca | in other words, that the number of losses in a row can be bounded. In this c | |||
| se, what is | ase, what is | |||
| really desired is a Maximum Consecutive Loss (MCL). (See also section | really desired is a Maximum Consecutive Loss (MCL). (See also | |||
| 5.9.5 in <xref target="RFC8175"/>.) | <xref target="RFC8175" section="5.9.5"/>.) | |||
| If the number of losses in a row passes the MCL, the control loop has to | If the number of losses in a row passes the MCL, the control loop has to | |||
| abort and the system, e.g., the production line, may need to enter an | abort, and the system (e.g., the production line) may need to enter an | |||
| emergency stop condition. | emergency stop condition. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand "as an MTBF as a proxy" in this sentence? | ||||
| Also, please confirm that Section 7.4 of [RFC8578] is correct here. We do | ||||
| not see "reliability", "MTBF", or "MCL" in that section. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Engineers that build automated processes may use the network | ||||
| reliability expressed in nines as an MTBF as a proxy to indicate an | ||||
| MCL, e.g., as described in section 7.4 of the "Deterministic | ||||
| Networking Use Cases" [RFC8578]. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Engineers that build automated processes may use the network | ||||
| reliability expressed in nines as the MTBF and as a proxy to indicate an | ||||
| MCL, e.g., as described in Section 7.4 of the "Deterministic | ||||
| Networking Use Cases" [RFC8578]. | ||||
| Or: | ||||
| Engineers that build automated processes may use the network | ||||
| reliability expressed in nines as the MTBF, which is then used as a | ||||
| proxy to indicate an | ||||
| MCL, e.g., as described in Section 7.4 of the "Deterministic | ||||
| Networking Use Cases" [RFC8578]. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Engineers that build automated processes may use the network reliability | Engineers that build automated processes may use the network reliability | |||
| expressed in nines as an MTBF as a proxy to indicate an MCL, e.g., as | expressed in nines as an MTBF as a proxy to indicate an MCL, e.g., as | |||
| described in section 7.4 of the <xref target="RFC8578">"Deterministic | described in Section <xref target="RFC8578" sectionFormat="bare" section="7. | |||
| Networking Use Cases"</xref>. | 4"/> of "Deterministic Networking Use Cases" <xref target="RFC8578"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Applying Reliability concepts to Networking--> | ||||
| <!-- 22222222222222222222 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Wireless Effects Affecting Reliability</name> | <name>Wireless Effects Affecting Reliability</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In contrast with wired networks, errors in transmission are the predominant | In contrast with wired networks, errors in transmission are the predominant | |||
| source of packet loss in wireless networks. | source of packet loss in wireless networks. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The root cause for the loss may be of multiple origins, calling for | The root cause for the loss may be of multiple origins, calling for | |||
| the use of different forms of diversity: | the use of different forms of diversity: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <dl> | <dl> | |||
| <dt>Multipath Fading:</dt> | <dt>Multipath fading:</dt> | |||
| <dd> | <dd> | |||
| <t>A destructive interference by a reflection of the original signal. | <t>A destructive interference by a reflection of the original signal. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t>A radio signal may be received directly | <t>A radio signal may be received directly | |||
| (line-of-sight) and/or as a reflection on a physical structure (echo). | (line-of-sight) and/or as a reflection on a physical structure (echo). | |||
| The reflections take a longer path and are delayed by the extra distance | The reflections take a longer path and are delayed by the extra distance | |||
| divided by the speed of light in the medium. Depending on the frequency, the | divided by the speed of light in the medium. Depending on the frequency, the | |||
| echo lands with a different phase which may add up to (constructive | echo lands with a different phase, which may either add up to (constructive | |||
| interference) or cancel (destructive interference) the direct signal. | interference) or cancel (destructive interference) the direct signal. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The affected frequencies depend on the relative position of the sender, the | The affected frequencies depend on the relative position of the sender, the | |||
| receiver, and all the reflecting objects in the environment. | receiver, and all the reflecting objects in the environment. | |||
| A given hop suffers from multipath fading for multiple packets in a | A given hop suffers from multipath fading for multiple packets in a | |||
| row till a physical movement changes the reflection patterns. | row until a physical movement changes the reflection patterns. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Co-channel Interference:</dt> | <dt>Co-channel interference:</dt> | |||
| <dd> | <dd> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Energy in the spectrum used for the transmission confuses the receiver. | Energy in the spectrum used for the transmission confuses the receiver. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The wireless medium itself is a Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) for nearby | The wireless medium itself is a Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) for nearby | |||
| users of the same spectrum, as an interference may affect multiple co-channe l | users of the same spectrum, as an interference may affect multiple co-channe l | |||
| transmissions between different peers within the interference domain of the | transmissions between different peers within the interference domain of the | |||
| interferer, possibly even when they use different technologies. | interferer, possibly even when they use different technologies. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Obstacle in Fresnel Zone:</dt> | <dt>Obstacle in Fresnel zone:</dt> | |||
| <dd> | <dd> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The Fresnel zone is an elliptical region of space between and around the tra nsmit | The Fresnel zone is an elliptical region of space between and around the tra nsmit | |||
| and receive antennas in a point-to-point wireless communication. | and receive antennas in a point-to-point wireless communication. | |||
| The optimal transmission happens when it is free of obstacles. | The optimal transmission happens when it is free of obstacles. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| </dl> | </dl> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| skipping to change at line 1075 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1554 ¶ | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Transmission losses are typically not independent, and their nature and | Transmission losses are typically not independent, and their nature and | |||
| duration are unpredictable; as long as a physical object (e.g., a metallic | duration are unpredictable; as long as a physical object (e.g., a metallic | |||
| trolley between peers) that affects the transmission is not removed, or as | trolley between peers) that affects the transmission is not removed, or as | |||
| long as the interferer (e.g., a radar in the ISM band) keeps transmitting, a continuous | long as the interferer (e.g., a radar in the ISM band) keeps transmitting, a continuous | |||
| stream of packets are affected. | stream of packets are affected. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The key technique to combat those unpredictable losses is diversity. | The key technique to combat those unpredictable losses is diversity. | |||
| Different forms of diversity are necessary to combat different causes of | Different forms of diversity are necessary to combat different causes of | |||
| loss and the use of diversity must be maximized to optimize the PDR. | loss, and the use of diversity must be maximized to optimize the PDR. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Please review the series in this sentences (i.e., "on diverse | ||||
| radio channels... and diverse PHY technologies ... , or diverse | ||||
| codes"). Should this be a series of two items or three items? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over | ||||
| diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels | ||||
| (frequency diversity) and diverse PHY technologies, e.g., narrowband | ||||
| vs. spread spectrum, or diverse codes. | ||||
| Perhaps (two items): | ||||
| A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over | ||||
| diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely either on diverse radio channels | ||||
| (frequency diversity) and diverse PHY technologies (e.g., narrowband | ||||
| versus spread spectrum) or on diverse codes. | ||||
| Or (three items): | ||||
| A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over | ||||
| diverse paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels | ||||
| (frequency diversity), diverse PHY technologies (e.g., narrowband | ||||
| versus spread spectrum), or diverse codes. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over diverse | A single packet may be sent at different times (time diversity) over diverse | |||
| paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels (frequency | paths (spatial diversity) that rely on diverse radio channels (frequency | |||
| diversity) and diverse PHY technologies, e.g., narrowband vs. spread | diversity) and diverse PHY technologies (e.g., narrowband versus spread | |||
| spectrum, or diverse codes. | spectrum), or diverse codes. | |||
| Using time diversity defeats short-term interferences; | Using time diversity defeats short-term interferences; | |||
| spatial diversity combats very local causes of interference such as multipat h fading; | spatial diversity combats very local causes of interference such as multipat h fading; | |||
| narrowband and spread spectrum are relatively innocuous to one another and | narrowband and spread spectrum are relatively innocuous to one another and | |||
| can be used for diversity in the presence of the other. | can be used for diversity in the presence of the other. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Reliability in the Context of RAW--> | ||||
| </section> <!-- Reliable and Available Wireless --> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="model" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="model" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>The RAW Conceptual Model</name> | <name>The RAW Conceptual Model</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Is "point of local reaction" correct here? We ask because we see | ||||
| "Point of Local Repair" elsewhere in the document, including in Section | ||||
| 6.5 (mentioned in this sentence). | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The PLR (see Section 6.5) is a point of | ||||
| local reaction to provide additional agility against transmission | ||||
| loss. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The PLR (see Section 6.5) | ||||
| provides additional agility against transmission | ||||
| loss. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW extends the conceptual model described in section 4 of the DetNet | RAW extends the conceptual model described in Section <xref | |||
| Architecture <xref target="RFC8655"/> with the PLR at the Service sub-layer, | target="RFC8655" sectionFormat="bare" section="4"/> of "Deterministic | |||
| as illustrated in <xref target='FigLayers'/>. The PLR | Networking Architecture" <xref target="RFC8655"/> with the PLR at the | |||
| (see <xref target='PLRpce'/>) is a point of local reaction to | Service sub-layer, as illustrated in <xref target='FigLayers'/>. The PLR | |||
| provide additional agility against transmission loss. The PLR can act, e.g., | (see <xref target='PLRpce'/>) is a point of local reaction to provide | |||
| based on indications from the lower layer or based on OAM. | additional agility against transmission loss. For example, the PLR can act | |||
| based on indications from the lower layer or based on OAM. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="FigLayers"> | <figure anchor="FigLayers"> | |||
| <name>Extended DetNet Data-Plane Protocol Stack</name> | <name>Extended DetNet Data Plane Protocol Stack</name> | |||
| <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| | packets going | ^ packets coming ^ | | packets going | ^ packets coming ^ | |||
| v down the stack v | up the stack | | v down the stack v | up the stack | | |||
| +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | |||
| | Source | | Destination | | | Source | | Destination | | |||
| +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | |||
| | Service sub-layer: | | Service sub-layer: | | | Service sub-layer: | | Service sub-layer: | | |||
| | Packet sequencing | | Duplicate elimination | | | Packet sequencing | | Duplicate elimination | | |||
| | Flow replication | | Flow merging | | | Flow replication | | Flow merging | | |||
| | Packet encoding | | Packet decoding | | | Packet encoding | | Packet decoding | | |||
| | Point of Local Repair | | | | | Point of Local Repair | | | | |||
| +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | |||
| | Forwarding sub-layer: | | Forwarding sub-layer: | | | Forwarding sub-layer: | | Forwarding sub-layer: | | |||
| | Resource allocation | | Resource allocation | | | Resource allocation | | Resource allocation | | |||
| | Explicit routes | | Explicit routes | | | Explicit routes | | Explicit routes | | |||
| +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | |||
| | Lower layers | | Lower layers | | | Lower layers | | Lower layers | | |||
| +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | +-----------------------+ +-----------------------+ | |||
| v ^ | v ^ | |||
| \_________________________/ | \_________________________/ | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <section anchor="plane" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="plane" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>The RAW Planes</name> | <name>The RAW Planes</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW Nodes are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate in the RAW Network Plane an d | The RAW Nodes are DetNet Relay Nodes that operate in the RAW Network Plane an d | |||
| are capable of additional diversity mechanisms and measurement functions | are capable of additional diversity mechanisms and measurement functions | |||
| related to the radio interface. | related to the radio interface. | |||
| RAW leverages an Operational Plane orientation function (that typically opera tes inside the Ingress | RAW leverages an Operational Plane orientation function (that typically opera tes inside the Ingress | |||
| Edge Nodes) to dynamically adapt the path of the packets and optimizes the | Edge Nodes) to dynamically adapt the path of the packets and optimize the | |||
| resource usage. | resource usage. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| In the case of centralized routing operations, the RAW Controller Plane Funct ion (CPF) interacts | In the case of centralized routing operations, the RAW Controller Plane Funct ion (CPF) interacts | |||
| with RAW Nodes over a Southbound API. It consumes data and information from | with RAW Nodes over a Southbound API. It consumes data and information from | |||
| the network and generates knowledge and wisdom to help steer the traffic opti mally inside a recovery graph. | the network and generates knowledge and wisdom to help steer the traffic opti mally inside a recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="FigCPF"> | <figure anchor="FigCPF"> | |||
| <name>RAW Nodes (Centralized Routing Case)</name> | <name>RAW Nodes (Centralized Routing Case)</name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| DetNet Routing | DetNet Routing | |||
| CPF CPF CPF CPF | CPF CPF CPF CPF | |||
| Southbound API | Southbound API | |||
| _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | |||
| _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | |||
| ___ RAW ___ RAW ___ RAW ___ RAW __ | ___ RAW ___ RAW ___ RAW ___ RAW __ | |||
| / Node Node Node Node \ | / Node Node Node Node \ | |||
| Ingress __/ / \ / \ \____Egress | Ingress __/ / \ / \ \____Egress | |||
| End __ / \ / .- -- . \ ___ End | End __ / \ / .- -- . \ ___ End | |||
| Node \ / \ / .-( ). \ / Node | Node \ / \ / .-( ). \ / Node | |||
| \_ RAW ___ RAW ___(Non-RAW Nodes)__ RAW _/ | \_ RAW ___ RAW ___(Non-RAW Nodes)__ RAW _/ | |||
| Node Node (___.______.____) Node | Node Node (___.______.____) Node | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| When a new flow is defined, the routing function uses its current knowledge o f | When a new flow is defined, the routing function uses its current knowledge o f | |||
| the network to build a new recovery graph between an Ingress End System and a n Egress | the network to build a new recovery graph between an Ingress End System and a n Egress | |||
| End System for that flow; it indicates to the RAW Nodes where the PREOF and/o r radio | End System for that flow; it indicates to the RAW Nodes where the PREOF and/o r radio | |||
| diversity and reliability operations may be actioned in the Network Plane. | diversity and reliability operations may be actioned in the Network Plane. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <ul> | <ul> | |||
| <li> | <li> | |||
| The recovery graph may be strict, meaning that the | The recovery graph may be strict, meaning that the | |||
| DetNet forwarding sub-layer operations are enforced end-to-end | DetNet forwarding sub-layer operations are enforced end to end. | |||
| </li><li> | </li><li> | |||
| The recovery graph may be expressed loosely to enable traversing a non-RAW s ubnetwork | The recovery graph may be expressed loosely to enable traversing a non-RAW s ubnetwork | |||
| as in <xref target='FigDN3'/>. | as in <xref target='FigDN3'/>. | |||
| In that case, RAW cannot leverage end-to-end DetNet and cannot provide | In that case, RAW cannot leverage end-to-end DetNet and cannot provide | |||
| latency guarantees. | latency guarantees. | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| </ul> | </ul> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] How may we update "includes may be a time-aggregated (e.g., | ||||
| statistical) fashion" for clarity? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The information that the orientation function reports to the routing | ||||
| function includes may be a time-aggregated, e.g., statistical | ||||
| fashion, to match the longer-term operation of the routing function. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The information that the orientation function reports to the routing | ||||
| function may be time aggregated (e.g., statistical), | ||||
| to match the longer-term operation of the routing function. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The information that the orientation function reports to the routing functio | The information that the orientation function reports to the routing | |||
| n | function includes may be a time-aggregated, e.g., statistical fashion, to | |||
| includes may be a time-aggregated, e.g., statistical fashion, to match the lo | match the longer-term operation of the routing function. Example | |||
| nger-term | information includes link-layer metrics such as link bandwidth (the medium | |||
| operation of the routing function. | speed depends dynamically on the mode of the PHY layer), number | |||
| Example information includes Link-Layer metrics such as Link | of flows (bandwidth that can be reserved for a flow depends on the number | |||
| bandwidth (the medium speed depends dynamically on the mode of the physical | and size of flows sharing the spectrum), and the average and mean squared | |||
| (PHY) layer), number of | deviation of availability and reliability metrics (such as PDR) | |||
| flows (bandwidth that can be reserved for a flow depends on the number and | over long periods of time. It may also report an aggregated | |||
| size of flows sharing the spectrum) and average and mean squared deviation | Expected Transmission Count (ETX) or a variation of it. </t><t> Based on | |||
| of availability and reliability metrics, such as Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) | those metrics, the routing function installs the recovery graph with | |||
| over long periods of time. It may also report an aggregated expected | enough redundant forwarding solutions to ensure that the Network Plane can | |||
| transmission count (ETX), or a variation of it. | reliably deliver the packets within an SLA associated with the flows that | |||
| </t><t> | it transports. The SLA defines end-to-end reliability and availability | |||
| Based on those metrics, the routing function installs the recovery graph wit | requirements, in which reliability may be expressed as a successful | |||
| h enough | delivery in order and within a bounded delay of at least one copy of a | |||
| redundant forwarding solutions to ensure that the Network Plane can reliably | packet. </t><t> Depending on the use case and the SLA, the recovery graph | |||
| deliver the packets within an SLA associated with the | may comprise non-RAW segments, either interleaved inside the recovery | |||
| flows that it transports. | graph (e.g., over tunnels) or all the way to the Egress End Node (e.g., a | |||
| The SLA defines end-to-end reliability and availability requirements, in whi | server in the local wired domain). RAW observes the lower-layer links | |||
| ch | between RAW nodes (typically radio links) and the end-to-end network-layer | |||
| reliability may be expressed as a successful delivery in-order and within a | operation to decide at all times which of the diversity schemes is | |||
| bounded delay of at least one copy of a packet. | actioned by which RAW Nodes. </t><t> Once a recovery graph is | |||
| </t><t> | established, per-segment and end-to-end reliability and availability | |||
| Depending on the use case and the SLA, the recovery graph may comprise non-R | statistics are periodically reported to the routing function to ensure | |||
| AW | that the SLA can be met; if not, then the recovery graph is recomputed. | |||
| segments, either interleaved inside the recovery graph (e.g. over tunnels), | ||||
| or all the way to the Egress End Node (e.g., a server in the local wired | ||||
| domain). RAW observes the | ||||
| Lower-Layer Links between RAW nodes (typically, radio links) and the | ||||
| end-to-end Network Layer operation to decide at all times which of the | ||||
| diversity schemes is actioned by which RAW Nodes. | ||||
| </t><t> | ||||
| Once a recovery graph is established, per-segment and end-to-end reliability | ||||
| and availability statistics are periodically reported to the routing function | ||||
| to ensure | ||||
| that the SLA can be met or if not, then have the recovery graph recomputed. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | ||||
| </section> <!--The RAW Network Plane --> | ||||
| <section anchor="layers" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="layers" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>RAW vs. Upper and Lower Layers</name> | <name>RAW Versus Upper and Lower Layers</name> | |||
| <t>RAW builds on DetNet-provided features such as scheduling and shaping. | <t>RAW builds on DetNet-provided features such as scheduling and shaping. | |||
| In particular, RAW inherits the DetNet guarantees on end-to-end latency, | In particular, RAW inherits the DetNet guarantees on end-to-end latency, | |||
| which can be tuned to ensure that DetNet and RAW reliability mechanisms have | which can be tuned to ensure that DetNet and RAW reliability mechanisms have | |||
| no side effect on upper layers, e.g., on transport-layer packet recovery. | no side effect on upper layers, e.g., on transport-layer packet recovery. | |||
| RAW operations include possible rerouting, which in turn may affect | RAW operations include possible rerouting, which in turn may affect | |||
| the ordering of a burst of packets. RAW also inherits PREOF from DetNet, | the ordering of a burst of packets. RAW also inherits PREOF from DetNet, | |||
| which can be used to reorder packets before delivery to the upper layers. | which can be used to reorder packets before delivery to the upper layers. | |||
| As a result, DetNet in general and RAW in particular offer a smoother | As a result, DetNet in general and RAW in particular offer a smoother | |||
| transport experience for the upper layers than the Internet at large | transport experience for the upper layers than the Internet at large, | |||
| with ultra-low jitter and loss. | with ultra-low jitter and loss. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "it" refers to in this sentence? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| RAW improves the reliability of transmissions and the availability of | ||||
| the communication resources, and should be seen as a dynamic | ||||
| optimization of the use of redundancy to maintain it within certain | ||||
| boundaries. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| RAW improves the reliability of transmissions and the availability of | ||||
| the communication resources and should be seen as a dynamic | ||||
| optimization of the use of redundancy to maintain reliability and availabilit | ||||
| y | ||||
| within certain boundaries. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW improves the reliability of transmissions and the availability of the | RAW improves the reliability of transmissions and the availability of | |||
| communication resources, and should be seen as a dynamic optimization of the use of | communication resources, and should be seen as a dynamic optimization of the use of | |||
| redundancy to maintain it within certain boundaries. | redundancy to maintain it within certain boundaries. | |||
| For instance, ARQ, which provides 1-hop reliability through acknowledgements | For instance, ARQ (which provides one-hop reliability through acknowledgemen | |||
| and retries, | ts and retries) | |||
| and FEC codes such as turbo codes which reduce the PER, are typically operat | and FEC codes (such as turbo codes which reduce the PER) are typically opera | |||
| ed at Layer-2 and Layer-1 respectively. | ted at Layer 2 and Layer 1, respectively. | |||
| In both cases, redundant transmissions improve the 1-hop reliability at the | In both cases, redundant transmissions improve the one-hop reliability at th | |||
| expense of energy and latency, which are the resources that RAW must control. | e expense of energy and latency, which are the resources that RAW must control. | |||
| In order to achieve its goals, RAW may leverage the lower-layer operations | In order to achieve its goals, RAW may leverage the lower-layer operations | |||
| by abstracting the concept and providing hints to the lower layers | by abstracting the concept and providing hints to the lower layers | |||
| on the desired outcome, e.g., in terms of reliability and timeliness, | on the desired outcome (e.g., in terms of reliability and timeliness), | |||
| as opposed to performing the actual operations at Layer-3. | as opposed to performing the actual operations at Layer 3. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Guarantees such as bounded latency depend on the upper layers (Transport or | Guarantees such as bounded latency depend on the upper layers (transport or | |||
| Application) to provide the payload in volumes and at times that match the | application) to provide the payload in volumes and at times that match the | |||
| contract with the DetNet sub-layers and the layers below. Excess of | contract with the DetNet sub-layers and the layers below. An excess of | |||
| incoming traffic at the DetNet Ingress may result in dropping or | incoming traffic at the DetNet Ingress may result in dropping or | |||
| queueing of packets, and can entail loss, latency, or jitter, and | queueing of packets and can entail loss, latency, or jitter; this violates t | |||
| therefore, violate the guarantees that are provided inside the DetNet Networ | he guarantees that are provided inside the DetNet Network. | |||
| k. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| When the traffic from upper layers matches the expectation of the lower | When the traffic from upper layers matches the expectation of the lower | |||
| layers, RAW still depends on DetNet mechanisms and the | layers, RAW still depends on DetNet mechanisms and the | |||
| lower layers to provide the timing and | lower layers to provide the timing and | |||
| physical resource guarantees that are needed to match the traffic SLA. | physical resource guarantees that are needed to match the traffic SLA. | |||
| When the availability of the physical resource varies, RAW acts on the | When the availability of the physical resource varies, RAW acts on the | |||
| distribution of the traffic to leverage alternates within a finite set of | distribution of the traffic to leverage alternates within a finite set of | |||
| potential resources. | potential resources. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The Operational Plane elements (Routing and OAM control) may gather | The Operational Plane elements (routing and OAM control) may gather | |||
| aggregated information from lower layers about e.g., link quality, | aggregated information from lower layers (e.g., information about link quali | |||
| either via measurement or communication with the lower layer. | ty), | |||
| via measurement or communication with the lower layer. | ||||
| This information may be obtained from inside the device using | This information may be obtained from inside the device using | |||
| specialized APIs (e.g., L2 triggers), via monitoring and measurement protoc | specialized APIs (e.g., L2 triggers) via monitoring and measurement protocol | |||
| ols such as BFD | s such as Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) | |||
| <xref target="RFC5880"/> and STAMP <xref target="RFC8762"/>, respectively, o | <xref target="RFC5880"/> and Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STA | |||
| r via a control protocol exchange with the | MP) <xref target="RFC8762"/>, respectively, or via a control protocol exchange w | |||
| lower layer via, e.g., DLEP <xref target="RFC8175"/>. It may then be | ith the | |||
| processed and exported through OAM messaging or via a YANG data model, | lower layer (e.g., DLEP <xref target="RFC8175"/>). It may then be | |||
| processed and exported through OAM messaging or via a YANG data model | ||||
| and exposed to the Controller Plane. | and exposed to the Controller Plane. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> <!--The RAW Network Plane --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="DetNet" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="DetNet" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>RAW and DetNet</name> | <name>RAW and DetNet</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW leverages the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer and requires the support of | RAW leverages the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer and requires the support of | |||
| OAM in DetNet Transit Nodes (see Figure 3 of <xref target="RFC8655"/>) for the | OAM in DetNet Transit Nodes (see Figure 3 of <xref target="RFC8655"/>) for the | |||
| dynamic acquisition of link capacity and state to maintain a strict RAW | dynamic acquisition of link capacity and state to maintain a strict RAW | |||
| service, end-to-end, over a DetNet Network. In turn, DetNet and thus RAW | service end to end over a DetNet Network. In turn, DetNet and thus RAW | |||
| may benefit from / leverage functionality such as provided by TSN at the | may benefit from or leverage functionality such as that provided by TSN at the | |||
| lower layers. | lower layers. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW extends DetNet to improve the | RAW extends DetNet to improve the | |||
| protection against link errors such as transient flapping that are far more | protection against link errors such as transient flapping that are far more | |||
| common in wireless links. Nevertheless, the RAW methods are for the most part | common in wireless links. Nevertheless, for the most part, the RAW methods are | |||
| applicable to wired links as well, e.g., when energy savings are desirable and | applicable to wired links as well, e.g., when energy savings are desirable and | |||
| the available path diversity exceeds 1+1 linear redundancy. | the available path diversity exceeds 1+1 linear redundancy. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW adds sub-layer functions that operate in the DetNet Operational Plane, whi ch is part of the Network Plane. | RAW adds sub-layer functions that operate in the DetNet Operational Plane, whi ch is part of the Network Plane. | |||
| The RAW orientation function may run only in the DetNet Edge Nodes (Ingress Ed ge | The RAW orientation function may run only in the DetNet Edge Nodes (Ingress Ed ge | |||
| Node or End System), or it also run in DetNet Relay Nodes | Node or End System), or it can also run in DetNet Relay Nodes | |||
| when the RAW operations are distributed along the recovery graph. | when the RAW operations are distributed along the recovery graph. | |||
| The RAW Service sub-layer includes the PLR, which decides the DetNet Path for the | The RAW Service sub-layer includes the PLR, which decides the DetNet Path for the | |||
| future packets of a flow along the DetNet Path, Maintenance End Points (MEPs) | future packets of a flow along the DetNet Path, Maintenance End Points (MEPs) | |||
| on edge nodes, and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs) within. The MEPs | on edge nodes, and Maintenance Intermediate Points (MIPs) within. The MEPs | |||
| trigger, and learn from, OAM observations, and feed the PLR for its | trigger, and learn from, OAM observations and feed the PLR for its | |||
| next decision. | next decision. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| As illustrated in <xref target='FigDN'/>, RAW extends the DetNet Stack (see | As illustrated in <xref target='FigDN'/>, RAW extends the DetNet Stack (see | |||
| Figure 4 of <xref target="RFC8655"/> and <xref target='FigLayers'/>) with | Figure 4 of <xref target="RFC8655"/> and <xref target='FigLayers'/>) with | |||
| additional functionality at the DetNet Service sub-layer for the actuation of PREOF based on the PLR decision. | additional functionality at the DetNet Service sub-layer for the actuation of PREOF based on the PLR decision. | |||
| DetNet operates at Layer-3, leveraging abstractions of the | DetNet operates at Layer 3, leveraging abstractions of the | |||
| lower layers and APIs that control those abstractions. For instance, | lower layers and APIs that control those abstractions. For instance, | |||
| DetNet already leverages lower layers for time-sensitive operations such as | DetNet already leverages lower layers for time-sensitive operations such as | |||
| time synchronization and traffic shapers. As the performances of the | time synchronization and traffic shapers. As the performances of the | |||
| radio layers are subject to rapid changes, RAW needs more dynamic gauges | radio layers are subject to rapid changes, RAW needs more dynamic gauges | |||
| and knobs. To that effect, the LL API provides an | and knobs. To that effect, the LL API provides an | |||
| abstraction to the DetNet layer that can be used to push reliability | abstraction to the DetNet layer that can be used to push reliability | |||
| and timing hints like suggest X retries (min, max) within a time window, or | and timing hints, like suggesting X retries (min, max) within a time window or | |||
| send unicast (one next hop) or multicast (for overhearing). | sending unicast (one next hop) or multicast (for overhearing). | |||
| In the other direction up the stack, the RAW PLR needs hints about the radio c onditions such as L2 triggers (e.g., RSSI, LQI, or ETX) over all the wireless ho ps. | In the other direction up the stack, the RAW PLR needs hints about the radio c onditions such as L2 triggers (e.g., RSSI, LQI, or ETX) over all the wireless ho ps. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW uses various OAM functionalities at the different layers. For instance, | RAW uses various OAM functionalities at the different layers. For instance, | |||
| the OAM function in the DetNet Service sub-layer may perform Active | the OAM function in the DetNet Service sub-layer may perform Active | |||
| and/or Hybrid OAM to estimate the link and path availability, end-to-end | and/or Hybrid OAM to estimate the link and path availability, either end to en d | |||
| or limited to a Segment. The RAW | or limited to a Segment. The RAW | |||
| functions may be present in the Service sub-layer in DetNet Edge and Relay Nod es. | functions may be present in the Service sub-layer in DetNet Edge and Relay Nod es. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="FigDN"> | <figure anchor="FigDN"> | |||
| <name>RAW function placement (Centralized Routing Case)</name> | <name>RAW Function Placement (Centralized Routing Case)</name> | |||
| <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | |||
| | Routing | | OAM Control | | | Routing | | OAM Control | | |||
| +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | |||
| Controller Plane | Controller Plane | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound Interface -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Southbound Interface -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| Network Plane | Network Plane | |||
| | | | | |||
| Operational Plane . Data Plane | Operational Plane . Data Plane | |||
| | | | | |||
| +-----------------+ . | +-----------------+ . | |||
| | Orientation | | | | Orientation | | | |||
| +-----------------+ . | +-----------------+ . | |||
| | | | | |||
| +-----------------+ +-------------------+ . | +-----------------+ +-------------------+ . | |||
| | Point of | | OAM Maintenance | | | | Point of Local | | OAM Maintenance | | | |||
| | local Repair | | End Point (MEP) | . | | Repair (PLR) | | End Point (MEP) | . | |||
| +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | | +-----------------+ +-------------------+ | | |||
| . | . | |||
| | | | | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t> There are two main proposed models to deploy RAW and DetNet. In the first | ||||
| model (strict) (illustrated in <xref target="FigDN2"/>), RAW operates over a | <!-- [rfced] Please review the paragraphs before Figure 6 (strict model) and | |||
| continuous DetNet Service end-to-end between the Ingress and the Egress Edge | Figure 7 (loose model) and let us know if any changes are needed to place | |||
| text about the loose model together before Figure 7. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t>There are two main proposed models to deploy RAW and DetNet: strict (<xref ta | ||||
| rget="FigDN2"/>) and loose (<xref target="FigDN3"/>). In the | ||||
| strict model, illustrated in <xref target="FigDN2"/>, RAW operates over a | ||||
| continuous DetNet service end to end between the Ingress and the Egress Edge | ||||
| Nodes or End Systems. | Nodes or End Systems. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| sIn the second model (loose), RAW may traverse a section of the network that | In the loose model, illustrated in <xref target="FigDN3"/>, RAW may traverse | |||
| is not serviced by DetNet. RAW / OAM may observe the end-to-end traffic and make | a section of the network that | |||
| the best of the available resources, but it may not expect the DetNet guarantee | is not serviced by DetNet. RAW / OAM may observe the end-to-end traffic and | |||
| s over all paths. For instance, | make the best of the available resources, but it may not expect the DetNet | |||
| the packets between two wireless entities may be relayed over a wired | guarantees over all paths. For instance, the packets between two wireless | |||
| infrastructure, in which case RAW observes and controls the transmission | entities may be relayed over a wired infrastructure, in which case RAW | |||
| over the wireless first and last hops, as well as end-to-end metrics such as | observes and controls the transmission over the wireless first and last | |||
| latency, jitter, and delivery ratio. This operation is loose since the | hops, as well as end-to-end metrics such as latency, jitter, and delivery | |||
| structure and properties of the wired infrastructure are ignored, and may be | ratio. This operation is loose since the structure and properties of the | |||
| either controlled by other means such as DetNet/TSN, or neglected in the | wired infrastructure are ignored and may be either controlled by other | |||
| face of the wireless hops. | means such as DetNet/TSN or neglected in the face of the wireless hops. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A minimal Forwarding sub-layer service is provided at all DetNet Nodes | A minimal Forwarding sub-layer service is provided at all DetNet Nodes | |||
| to ensure that the OAM information flows. DetNet Relay Nodes may or may not su pport | to ensure that the OAM information flows. DetNet Relay Nodes may or may not su pport | |||
| RAW services, whereas the DetNet Edge Nodes are required to support RAW in any case. | RAW services, whereas the DetNet Edge Nodes are required to support RAW in any case. | |||
| DetNet guarantees, such as bounded latency, are provided end-to-end. | DetNet guarantees, such as bounded latency, are provided end to end. | |||
| RAW extends the DetNet Service sub-layer to optimize the use of resources. | RAW extends the DetNet Service sub-layer to optimize the use of resources. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="FigDN2"> | <figure anchor="FigDN2"> | |||
| <name>(Strict) RAW over DetNet</name> | <name>RAW over DetNet (Strict Model)</name> | |||
| <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| --------------------Flow Direction----------------------------------> | --------------------Flow Direction----------------------------------> | |||
| +---------+ | +---------+ | |||
| | RAW | | | RAW | | |||
| | Control | | | Control | | |||
| +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| | RAW + | | RAW + | | RAW + | | | RAW + | | RAW + | | RAW + | | |||
| | DetNet | | DetNet | | DetNet | | | DetNet | | DetNet | | DetNet | | |||
| | Service | | Service | | Service | | | Service | | Service | | Service | | |||
| +---------+---------------------------+---------+--------+---------+ | +---------+---------------------------+---------+--------+---------+ | |||
| | DetNet | | | DetNet | | |||
| | Forwarding | | | Forwarding | | |||
| +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | |||
| Ingress Transit Relay Egress | Ingress Transit Relay Egress | |||
| Edge ... Nodes ... Nodes ... Edge | Edge ... Nodes ... Nodes ... Edge | |||
| Node Node | Node Node | |||
| <------------------End-to-End DetNet Service-----------------------> | <------------------End-to-End DetNet Service-----------------------> | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t> In the second model (loose), illustrated in <xref target="FigDN3"/>, RAW | <t>In the loose model (illustrated in <xref target="FigDN3"/>), RAW | |||
| operates over a partial DetNet Service where typically only the Ingress and | operates over a partial DetNet service where typically only the Ingress and | |||
| the Egress End Systems support RAW. The DetNet Domain may extend beyond the | the Egress End Systems support RAW. The DetNet domain may extend beyond the | |||
| Ingress Node, or there may be a DetNet domain starting at an Ingress | Ingress Node, or there may be a DetNet domain starting at an Ingress | |||
| Edge Node at the first hop after the End System. | Edge Node at the first hop after the End System. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the loose model, RAW cannot observe the hops in the network, and the path | In the loose model, RAW cannot observe the hops in the network, and the path | |||
| beyond the first hop is opaque; RAW can still observe the end-to-end | beyond the first hop is opaque; RAW can still observe the end-to-end | |||
| behavior and use Layer-3 measurements to decide whether to replicate a packet | behavior and use Layer 3 measurements to decide whether to replicate a packet | |||
| and select the first-hop interface(s). | and select the first-hop interface(s). | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="FigDN3"> | <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have adjusted the titles of Figures 6 and 7 to make them | |||
| <name>Loose RAW</name> | consistent with one another; please review. | |||
| <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""> | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Figure 6: (Strict) RAW over DetNet | ||||
| Figure 7: Loose RAW | ||||
| Current: | ||||
| Figure 6: RAW over DetNet (Strict Model) | ||||
| Figure 7: RAW over DetNet (Loose Model) | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <figure anchor="FigDN3"> | ||||
| <name>RAW over DetNet (Loose Model)</name> | ||||
| <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | ||||
| --------------------Flow Direction----------------------------------> | --------------------Flow Direction----------------------------------> | |||
| +---------+ | +---------+ | |||
| | RAW | | | RAW | | |||
| | Control | | | Control | | |||
| +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| | RAW + | | DetNet | | RAW + | | | RAW + | | DetNet | | RAW + | | |||
| | DetNet | | Only | | DetNet | | | DetNet | | Only | | DetNet | | |||
| | Service | | Service | | Service | | | Service | | Service | | Service | | |||
| +---------+----------------------+---+ +---+---------+ | +---------+----------------------+---+ +---+---------+ | |||
| | DetNet |_______________| DetNet | | | DetNet |_______________| DetNet | | |||
| | Forwarding _______________ Forwarding | | | Forwarding _______________ Forwarding | | |||
| +------------------------------------+ +-------------+ | +------------------------------------+ +-------------+ | |||
| Ingress Transit Relay Tunnel Egress | Ingress Transit Relay Tunnel Egress | |||
| End ... Nodes ... Nodes ... ... End | End ... Nodes ... Nodes ... ... End | |||
| System System | System System | |||
| <---------------Partitioned DetNet Service-------------------------> | <---------------Partitioned DetNet Service-------------------------> | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ||||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| </section> <!-- RAW and DetNet --> | </section> | |||
| <!-- 1111111111111 --> | ||||
| </section> <!-- The RAW Conceptual Model --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="control" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="control" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>The RAW Control Loop</name> | <name>The RAW Control Loop</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW Architecture is based on an abstract OODA Loop that controls the oper | The RAW architecture is based on an abstract OODA | |||
| ation of a Recovery Graph. | Loop that controls the operation of a recovery graph. The generic | |||
| The generic concept involves: | concept involves the following: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Some of the items in the numbered list in Section 6 are complete | ||||
| sentences and others are not. How may we update to create parallel | ||||
| structure? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| 1. Operational Plane measurement protocols for OAM to observe (like | ||||
| the first O in OODA) some or all hops along a recovery graph as | ||||
| well as the end-to-end packet delivery. | ||||
| 2. The DetNet Controller Plane establish primary and protection | ||||
| paths for use by the RAW Network Plane. ... | ||||
| 3. A PLR operates at the DetNet Service sub-layer and hosts the | ||||
| decision function (like the D in OODA) of which DetNet Paths to | ||||
| use for the future packets that are routed within the recovery | ||||
| graph. | ||||
| 4. Service protection actions that are actuated or triggered over | ||||
| the LL API by the PLR to increase the reliability of the end-to- | ||||
| end transmissions. ... | ||||
| Perhaps (make #1 and #4 into complete sentences): | ||||
| 1. Operational Plane measurement protocols allow OAM to observe (like | ||||
| the first "O" in "OODA") some or all hops along a recovery graph as | ||||
| well as the end-to-end packet delivery. | ||||
| 2. The DetNet Controller Plane establishes primary and protection | ||||
| paths for use by the RAW Network Plane. ... | ||||
| 3. A PLR operates at the DetNet Service sub-layer and hosts the | ||||
| decision function (like the D in OODA). The decision function determines | ||||
| which DetNet Paths will be | ||||
| used for future packets that are routed within the recovery | ||||
| graph. | ||||
| 4. Service protection actions are actuated or triggered over | ||||
| the LL API by the PLR to increase the reliability of the end-to- | ||||
| end transmissions. ... | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <ol> | <ol> | |||
| <li> Operational Plane measurement protocols for OAM to observe (like the | <li>Operational Plane measurement protocols for OAM to observe (like | |||
| first O in OODA) some or all hops along a recovery graph as well as | the first "O" in "OODA") some or all hops along a recovery graph as well a | |||
| s | ||||
| the end-to-end packet delivery. | the end-to-end packet delivery. | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| <li> | <li> | |||
| The DetNet Controller Plane establish primary and protection paths | The DetNet Controller Plane establishes primary and protection | |||
| for use by the RAW Network Plane. | paths for use by the RAW Network Plane. The orientation function | |||
| The orientation function reports | reports data and information such as link statistics to be used by the | |||
| data and information such as link statistics to be used | routing function to compute, install, and maintain the recovery | |||
| by the routing function to compute, install, and maintain the | graphs. The routing function may also generate intelligence such as a | |||
| recovery graphs. The routing function may also generate intelligence such | trained model for link quality prediction, which in turn can be used by | |||
| as a trained model | the orientation function (like the second "O" in "OODA") to influence the | |||
| for link quality prediction, which in turn can be used by the orientation | Path selection by the PLR within the RAW OODA loop. | |||
| function (like the second O in OODA) to influence the Path selection by the PLR | ||||
| within the RAW OODA loop. | ||||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| <li> A PLR operates at the DetNet Service | <li>A PLR operates at the DetNet Service sub-layer and hosts the | |||
| sub-layer and hosts the decision function (like the D in OODA) of which Det | decision function (like the "D" in "OODA"). The decision function determin | |||
| Net Paths to use | es which DetNet Paths will be used | |||
| for the future packets that are routed within the recovery graph. | for future packets that are routed within the recovery graph. | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| <li> Service protection actions that are actuated or triggered over the LL | <li>Service protection actions that are actuated or triggered over the LL | |||
| API by the PLR to increase the reliability of the end-to-end transmissions. | API | |||
| The RAW architecture also covers in-situ signaling that is embedded within | by the PLR to increase the reliability of the end-to-end transmissions. | |||
| live user traffic <xref target="RFC9378"/>, e.g., via OAM, when the decision is | The RAW architecture also covers in-situ signaling that is embedded | |||
| acted (like the A in OODA) upon by a node that is downstream in the recover | within live user traffic <xref target="RFC9378"/> (e.g., via OAM) when | |||
| y graph from the PLR. | the decision is acted (like the "A" in "OODA") upon by a node that is | |||
| downstream in the recovery graph from the PLR. | ||||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| </ol> | </ol> | |||
| <t> The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | <t>The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | |||
| required reliability and availability SLO(s) while | required reliability and availability SLO(s) while | |||
| minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum and battery. | minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum and battery. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <section anchor="timescale" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="timescale" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Routing Time-Scale vs. Forwarding Time-Scale</name> | <name>Routing Timescale Versus Forwarding Timescale</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| With DetNet, the Controller Plane Function handles the routing | With DetNet, the Controller Plane Function (CPF) handles the routing computat | |||
| computation and maintenance. With RAW, the routing operation is | ion | |||
| segregated from the RAW Control Loop, so it may reside in the Controller Plan | and maintenance. With RAW, the routing operation is segregated from the RAW | |||
| e | Control Loop, so it may reside in the Controller Plane, whereas the control | |||
| whereas the control loop itself happens in the Network Plane. To achieve RAW | loop itself happens in the Network Plane. To achieve RAW capabilities, the | |||
| capabilities, the routing operation is extended to generate the information requ | routing operation is extended to generate the information required by the | |||
| ired by the orientation function in the loop. | orientation function in the loop. For example, the routing function may prop | |||
| The routing function may, e.g., propose DetNet Paths to be used as a reflex | ose | |||
| action in response to network events, or provide an aggregated history that | DetNet Paths to be used as a reflex action in response to network events | |||
| the orientation function can use to make a decision. | or provide an aggregated history that the orientation function can use to | |||
| make a decision. | ||||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In a wireless mesh, the path to a routing function located in the controller | In a wireless mesh, the path to a routing function located in the controller | |||
| plane can be expensive and | plane can be expensive and | |||
| slow, possibly going across the whole mesh and back. | slow, possibly going across the whole mesh and back. | |||
| Reaching to the Controller Plane can also be slow in regards to the speed | Reaching the Controller Plane can also be slow in regard to the speed | |||
| of events that affect the forwarding operation in the Network Plane at the ra dio layer. | of events that affect the forwarding operation in the Network Plane at the ra dio layer. | |||
| Note that a distributed routing protocol may also take time and | Note that a distributed routing protocol may also take time and | |||
| consume excessive wireless resources to reconverge to a new optimized state. | consume excessive wireless resources to reconverge to a new optimized state. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| As a result, the DetNet routing function is not expected to be aware of and t o react to | As a result, the DetNet routing function is not expected to be aware of and r eact to | |||
| very transient changes. The abstraction of a link at the routing level is | very transient changes. The abstraction of a link at the routing level is | |||
| expected to use statistical metrics that aggregate the behavior of a link | expected to use statistical metrics that aggregate the behavior of a link | |||
| over long periods of time, and represent its properties as shades of gray as | over long periods of time and represent its properties as shades of gray as | |||
| opposed to numerical values such as a link quality indicator, or a Boolean | opposed to numerical values such as a link quality indicator or a Boolean | |||
| value for either up or down. | value for either up or down. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "builds reports to the routing function"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The interaction between the network nodes and the routing function is | ||||
| handled by the orientation function, which builds reports to the | ||||
| routing function and sends control information in a digested form ... | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The interaction between the network nodes and the routing function is | ||||
| handled by the orientation function, which builds reports for the | ||||
| routing function and sends control information in a digested form ... | ||||
| Or: | ||||
| The interaction between the network nodes and the routing function is | ||||
| handled by the orientation function, which reports to the | ||||
| routing function and sends control information in a digested form ... | ||||
| --> | ||||
| The interaction between the network nodes and the routing function is handled by the orientation function, which | The interaction between the network nodes and the routing function is handled by the orientation function, which | |||
| builds reports to the routing function and | builds reports to the routing function and | |||
| sends control information in a digested form back to the RAW node, to be used inside a forwarding control loop for | sends control information in a digested form back to the RAW node to be used inside a forwarding control loop for | |||
| traffic steering. | traffic steering. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| <xref target="Figcontrol"/> illustrates a Network Plane recovery graph | <xref target="Figcontrol"/> illustrates a Network Plane recovery graph | |||
| with links P-Q and N-E flapping, possibly in a transient fashion | with links P-Q and N-E flapping, possibly in a transient fashion | |||
| due to a short-term interferences, and possibly for a longer time, e.g., | due to short-term interferences and possibly for a longer time (e.g., | |||
| due to obstacles between the sender and the receiver or hardware failures. | due to obstacles between the sender and the receiver or hardware failures). | |||
| In order to maintain a received redundancy around a value of, say, 2, | In order to maintain a received redundancy around a value of 2 (for instance) | |||
| RAW may leverage a higher ARQ on these hops if the overall latency permits th | , | |||
| e extra delay, | RAW may leverage a higher ARQ on these hops if the overall latency permits th | |||
| e extra delay | ||||
| or enable alternate paths between ingress I and egress E. | or enable alternate paths between ingress I and egress E. | |||
| For instance, RAW may enable protection path I ==> F ==> N ==> Q ==> M ==> R ==> E | For instance, RAW may enable protection path I ==> F ==> N ==> Q ==> M ==> R ==> E | |||
| that routes around both issues and provides some degree of spatial diversity | that routes around both issues and provides some degree of spatial diversity | |||
| with protection path I ==> A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E. | with protection path I ==> A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E. | |||
| </t> | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <figure anchor="Figcontrol"> | <figure anchor="Figcontrol"> | |||
| <name>Time-Scales</name> | <name>Timescales</name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| <![CDATA[ | ||||
| +----------------+ | +----------------+ | |||
| | DetNet | | | DetNet | | |||
| | Routing | | | Routing | | |||
| +----------------+ | +----------------+ | |||
| ^ | ^ | |||
| | | | | |||
| Slow | Slow | |||
| | Controller Plane | | Controller Plane | |||
| _-._-._-._-._-._-. | ._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | _-._-._-._-._-._-. | ._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | |||
| _-._-._-._-._-._-._-. | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-. | _-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._- | |||
| skipping to change at line 1566 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2182 ¶ | |||
| ( A--------B---C----D ) | ( A--------B---C----D ) | |||
| _ - / \ / \ --._ | _ - / \ / \ --._ | |||
| ( I---F--------N--***-- E - | ( I---F--------N--***-- E - | |||
| -_ \ / / ) | -_ \ / / ) | |||
| ( P--***---Q----M---R . | ( P--***---Q----M---R . | |||
| _ )- ._ | _ )- ._ | |||
| - <------ Fast -------> ) | - <------ Fast -------> ) | |||
| ( -._ .- | ( -._ .- | |||
| (_.___.._____________.____.._ __-____) | (_.___.._____________.____.._ __-____) | |||
| *** = flapping at this time | *** = flapping at this time | |||
| ]]> | ]]></artwork> | |||
| </artwork> | ||||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the case of wireless, the changes that affect the forwarding decision can | In the case of wireless, the changes that affect the forwarding decision can | |||
| happen frequently and often for short durations, e.g., a mobile object moves | happen frequently and often for short durations. An example of this is a mobi | |||
| between a transmitter and a receiver, and cancels the line of sight | le object that moves | |||
| transmission for a few seconds, or, a radar measures the depth of a pool usin | between a transmitter and a receiver and cancels the line-of-sight | |||
| g the ISM band, and | transmission for a few seconds. Another example is radar that measures the de | |||
| pth of a pool using the ISM band and | ||||
| interferes on a particular channel for a split second. | interferes on a particular channel for a split second. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| There is thus a desire to separate the long-term computation of the route and | Thus, there is a desire to separate the long-term computation of the route an d | |||
| the short-term forwarding decision. In that model, the routing operation | the short-term forwarding decision. In that model, the routing operation | |||
| computes a recovery graph that enables multiple Unequal Cost Multi-Path | computes a recovery graph that enables multiple Unequal-Cost Multipath | |||
| (UCMP) forwarding solutions along so-called protection paths, and leaves | (UCMP) forwarding solutions along so-called protection paths and leaves | |||
| it to the Network Plane to make | it to the Network Plane to make | |||
| the short-term decision of which of these possibilities should be used for wh ich upcoming packets / flows. | the short-term decision of which of these possibilities should be used for wh ich upcoming packets and flows. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the context of Traffic Engineering (TE), an alternate path can be used | In the context of Traffic Engineering (TE), an alternate path can be used | |||
| upon the detection of a failure in the main path, e.g., using OAM in | upon the detection of a failure in the main path, e.g., using OAM in | |||
| Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) or BFD | Multiprotocol Label Switching - Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) or BFD | |||
| over a collection of Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN) tunnels. | over a collection of Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN) tunnels. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW formalizes a forwarding time-scale that may be order(s) of magnitude shor | RAW formalizes a forwarding timescale that may be order(s) of magnitude short | |||
| ter | er | |||
| than the Controller Plane routing time-scale, and separates the protocols | than the Controller Plane routing timescale and separates the protocols | |||
| and metrics that are used at both scales. | and metrics that are used at both scales. | |||
| Routing can operate on long-term statistics such as delivery | Routing can operate on long-term statistics such as delivery | |||
| ratio over minutes to hours, but as a first approximation can ignore the caus | ratio over minutes to hours, but as a first approximation, it can ignore the | |||
| e of transient losses. | cause of transient losses. | |||
| On the other hand, the RAW forwarding decision is made at the scale of a burs | On the other hand, the RAW forwarding decision is made at the scale of a burs | |||
| t of packets, | t of packets | |||
| and uses information that must be pertinent at the present time for the curre nt transmission(s). | and uses information that must be pertinent at the present time for the curre nt transmission(s). | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section > | </section > | |||
| <!--Routing time-scale vs. Forwarding time-scale--> | ||||
| <section anchor="ooda" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="ooda" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>OODA Loop</name> | <name>OODA Loop</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW architecture applies the generic OODA model to continuously optimize | ||||
| The RAW Architecture applies the generic OODA model to continuously optimize | the | |||
| the | ||||
| spectrum and energy used to forward packets within a recovery graph, instanti ating the | spectrum and energy used to forward packets within a recovery graph, instanti ating the | |||
| OODA steps as follows: | OODA steps as follows: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <dl> | <dl> | |||
| <dt>Observe:</dt><dd> Network Plane measurements, including protocols for | <dt>Observe:</dt><dd> Network Plane measurements, including protocols for | |||
| OAM, to Observe the local state of the links and some or all hops along a | OAM, observe the local state of the links and some or all hops along a rec | |||
| recovery graph as well as | overy graph as well as | |||
| the end-to-end packet delivery (see more in <xref target = "aom"/>). | the end-to-end packet delivery (see more in <xref target="aom"/>). | |||
| Information can also be provided by lower-layer | Information can also be provided by lower-layer | |||
| interfaces such as DLEP; | interfaces such as DLEP. | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Orient:</dt><dd> | <dt>Orient:</dt><dd> | |||
| The orientation function, which reports data and information such as the l | The orientation function reports data and information such as the link | |||
| ink | statistics and leverages offline-computed wisdom and knowledge to orient | |||
| statistics, and leverages offline-computed wisdom and knowledge to Orient | the PLR for its forwarding decision (see more in <xref target="pce"/>). | |||
| the PLR for its forwarding decision (see more in <xref target = "pce" />); | ||||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Decide:</dt><dd> A local PLR that decides which DetNet Path to use | <dt>Decide:</dt><dd>A local PLR decides which DetNet Path to use | |||
| for the future packet(s) that are routed along the recovery graph | for future packet(s) that are routed along the recovery graph | |||
| (see more in <xref target = "PLRpce" />); | (see more in <xref target="PLRpce"/>). | |||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| <dt>Act:</dt><dd> PREOF Data Plane | <dt>Act:</dt><dd>PREOF Data Plane actions are controlled by the PLR over | |||
| actions are controlled by the PLR over the LL API to increase the | the LL API to increase the reliability of the end-to-end | |||
| reliability of the end-to-end transmission. The RAW architecture also | transmission. The RAW architecture also covers in-situ signaling when | |||
| covers in-situ signaling when the decision is Acted by a node that is | the decision is acted by a node that is down the recovery graph from the | |||
| down the recovery graph from the PLR (see more in | PLR (see more in <xref target="reliability"/>). | |||
| <xref target = "reliability" />). | ||||
| </dd> | </dd> | |||
| </dl> | </dl> | |||
| <figure anchor="oodaloop"> | <figure anchor="oodaloop"> | |||
| <name>The RAW OODA Loop</name> | <name>The RAW OODA Loop</name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| <![CDATA[ | ||||
| +-------> Orientation ---------+ | +-------> Orientation ---------+ | |||
| | reflex actions | | | reflex actions | | |||
| | pre-trained model | | | pre-trained model | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| ...................................... | ...................................... | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | Service sub-layer | | | Service sub-layer | | |||
| | v | | v | |||
| Observe (OAM) Decide (PLR) | Observe (OAM) Decide (PLR) | |||
| ^ | | ^ | | |||
| skipping to change at line 1654 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2265 ¶ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| ...................................... | ...................................... | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | Service sub-layer | | | Service sub-layer | | |||
| | v | | v | |||
| Observe (OAM) Decide (PLR) | Observe (OAM) Decide (PLR) | |||
| ^ | | ^ | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| +------- Act (LL API) <--------+ | +------- Act (LL API) <--------+ | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ]]></artwork> | |||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <t> The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | <t> The overall OODA Loop optimizes the use of redundancy to achieve the | |||
| required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA) while | required reliability and availability Service Level Agreement (SLA) while | |||
| minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum and battery. | minimizing the use of constrained resources such as spectrum and battery. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section > <!-- A OODA Loop --> | </section > | |||
| <section anchor="aom" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="aom" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Observe: The RAW OAM </name><t> | <name>Observe: RAW OAM </name><t> | |||
| RAW In-situ OAM operation in the Network Plane may observe either a full | The RAW in-situ OAM operation in the Network Plane may observe either a full | |||
| recovery graph or the DetNet Path that is being used at this time. As packet s may be load | recovery graph or the DetNet Path that is being used at this time. As packet s may be load | |||
| balanced, replicated, eliminated, and / or fragmented for Network Coding | balanced, replicated, eliminated, and/or fragmented for Network Coding | |||
| FEC, the RAW In-situ operation needs to be | FEC, the RAW in-situ operation needs to be | |||
| able to signal which operation occurred to an individual packet. | able to signal which operation occurred to an individual packet. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Active RAW OAM may | Active RAW OAM may | |||
| be needed to observe the unused segments and evaluate the desirability of | be needed to observe the unused segments and evaluate the desirability of | |||
| a rerouting decision. | a rerouting decision. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "Assurance" means here? We do not | ||||
| see this used elsewhere in the document. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Finally, the RAW Service sub-layer Assurance may observe the | ||||
| individual PREOF operation of a DetNet Relay Node to ensure that it | ||||
| is conforming; | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Finally, the RAW Service sub-layer Assurance may observe the individual PREO F | Finally, the RAW Service sub-layer Assurance may observe the individual PREO F | |||
| operation of a DetNet Relay Node to ensure that it is conforming; this might | operation of a DetNet Relay Node to ensure that it is conforming; this might | |||
| require injecting an OAM packet at an upstream point inside the recovery gra ph and | require injecting an OAM packet at an upstream point inside the recovery gra ph and | |||
| extracting that packet at another point downstream before it reaches the | extracting that packet at another point downstream before it reaches the | |||
| egress. | egress. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| This observation feeds the RAW | This observation feeds the RAW | |||
| PLR that makes the decision on which path is used at which RAW | PLR that makes the decision on which path is used at which RAW | |||
| Node, for one packet or a small continuous series of packets. | Node, for one packet or a small continuous series of packets. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| In the case of End-to-End Protection in a Wireless Mesh, the recovery | In the case of end-to-end protection in a wireless mesh, the recovery | |||
| graph is strict and congruent with the path so all links are observed. | graph is strict and congruent with the path so all links are observed. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Conversely, in the case of Radio Access Protection, illustrated in | Conversely, in the case of Radio Access Protection, illustrated in | |||
| <xref target="Figranp2"/>, the recovery graph is Loose and only the first | <xref target="Figranp2"/>, the recovery graph is loose and only the first | |||
| hop is observed; the rest of the path is abstracted and considered | hop is observed; the rest of the path is abstracted and considered | |||
| infinitely reliable. The loss of a packet is attributed to the first-hop | infinitely reliable. The loss of a packet is attributed to the first-hop | |||
| Radio Access Network (RAN), even if a particular loss effectively happens | Radio Access Network (RAN), even if a particular loss effectively happens | |||
| farther down the path. In that case, RAW enables technology diversity | farther down the path. In that case, RAW enables technology diversity | |||
| (e.g., Wi-Fi and 5G), which in turn improves the diversity in spectrum usage. | (e.g., Wi-Fi and 5G), which in turn improves the diversity in spectrum usage. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="Figranp2"> | <figure anchor="Figranp2"> | |||
| <name>Observed Links in Radio Access Protection</name> | <name>Observed Links in Radio Access Protection</name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""> | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| <![CDATA[ | ||||
| Opaque to OAM | Opaque to OAM | |||
| <----------------------------> | <----------------------------> | |||
| .- .. - .. | .- .. - .. | |||
| RAN 1 --------( ).__ | RAN 1 --------( ).__ | |||
| +-------+ / ( ). +------+ | +-------+ / ( ). +------+ | |||
| |Ingress|- __________Tunnel_______________|Egress| | |Ingress|- __________Tunnel_______________|Egress| | |||
| | End |------ RAN 2 --_______________________________ End | | | End |------ RAN 2 --_______________________________ End | | |||
| |System |- ( ) |System| | |System |- ( ) |System| | |||
| +-------+ \ ( ). +------+ | +-------+ \ ( ). +------+ | |||
| RAN n ----( ) | RAN n ----( ) | |||
| (_______...___.__...____....__..) | (_______...___.__...____....__..) | |||
| <-------L2------> | <-------L2------> | |||
| Observed by OAM | Observed by OAM | |||
| <----------------------L3-----------------------> | <----------------------L3-----------------------> | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ]]></artwork> | |||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] What is being connected by "either" in the phrase "either or a | ||||
| collection of those access links". How should this text be clarified? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| ; still the RAW OAM measures the end-to-end latency and delivery | ||||
| ratio for packets sent via RAN 1, RAN 2, and RAN 3, and determines | ||||
| whether a packet should be sent over either or a collection of those | ||||
| access links. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The Links that are not observed by OAM are opaque to it, meaning that the | The links that are not observed by OAM are opaque to it, meaning that the | |||
| OAM information is carried across and possibly echoed as data, but there is | OAM information is carried across and possibly echoed as data, but there is | |||
| no information captured in intermediate nodes. In the example above, the | no information captured in intermediate nodes. In the example above, the | |||
| Tunnel underlay is opaque and not controlled by RAW; still the RAW OAM measu res the | tunnel underlay is opaque and not controlled by RAW; still, RAW OAM measures the | |||
| end-to-end latency and delivery ratio for packets sent via RAN 1, RAN 2, and | end-to-end latency and delivery ratio for packets sent via RAN 1, RAN 2, and | |||
| RAN 3, and determines whether a packet should be sent over either or a | RAN 3, and determines whether a packet should be sent over either or a | |||
| collection of those access links. | collection of those access links. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!-- Observe: The RAW OAM --> | ||||
| <section anchor="pce" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="pce" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Orient: The RAW-extended DetNet Operational Plane</name> | <name>Orient: The RAW-Extended DetNet Operational Plane</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW separates the long time-scale at which a recovery graph is computed and i | RAW separates the long timescale at which a recovery graph is computed and in | |||
| nstalled, | stalled | |||
| from the short time-scale at which the forwarding decision is taken for one | from the short timescale at which the forwarding decision is taken for one | |||
| or for a few packets (see <xref target="timescale"/>) that experience the | or a few packets (see <xref target="timescale"/>) that experience the | |||
| same path until the network conditions evolve and another path is selected | same path until the network conditions evolve and another path is selected | |||
| within the same recovery graph. | within the same recovery graph. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The recovery graph computation is out of scope, but RAW expects that the CPF | The recovery graph computation is out of scope, but RAW expects that the CPF | |||
| that installs the recovery graph also provides related knowledge | that installs the recovery graph also provides related knowledge | |||
| in the form of metadata about the links, segments, and possible DetNet Paths. | in the form of metadata about the links, segments, and possible DetNet Paths. | |||
| That metadata can be a pre-digested statistical model, and may include | That metadata can be a pre-digested statistical model and may include | |||
| prediction of future flaps and packet loss, as well as recommended actions | prediction of future flaps and packet loss, as well as recommended actions | |||
| when that happens. | when that happens. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The metadata may include: | The metadata may include: | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <ul> | <ul> | |||
| <li> | <li> | |||
| A set of Pre-Determined DetNet Paths that are prepared to match | A set of pre-determined DetNet Paths that are prepared to match | |||
| expected link-degradation profiles, so the DetNet Relay Nodes can take reflex rerouting actions when | expected link-degradation profiles, so the DetNet Relay Nodes can take reflex rerouting actions when | |||
| facing a degradation that matches one such profile; | facing a degradation that matches one such profile; and | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| <li> | <li> | |||
| Link-Quality Statistics history and pre-trained models, e.g., to predict the | Link-quality statistics history and pre-trained models (e.g., to predict the | |||
| short-term variation of quality of the links in a recovery graph. | short-term variation of quality of the links in a recovery graph). | |||
| </li> | </li> | |||
| </ul> | </ul> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The recovery graph is installed with measurable objectives that are computed | The recovery graph is installed with measurable objectives that are computed | |||
| by the CPF to achieve the RAW SLA. The objectives can be expressed as any of the | by the CPF to achieve the RAW SLA. The objectives can be expressed as any of the | |||
| maximum number of packets lost in a row, bounded latency, maximal jitter, | maximum number of packets lost in a row, bounded latency, maximal jitter, | |||
| maximum number of interleaved out-of-order packets, | maximum number of interleaved out-of-order packets, | |||
| average number of copies received at the elimination point, and maximal | average number of copies received at the elimination point, and maximal | |||
| delay between the first and the last received copy of the same packet. | delay between the first and the last received copy of the same packet. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!-- Orient: The Path Computation Engine --> | ||||
| <section anchor="PLRpce" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="PLRpce" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Decide: The Point of Local Repair</name> | <name>Decide: The Point of Local Repair</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] This sentence does not parse. Please clarify. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The OODA Loop controls, within the redundant solutions that are proposed by | ||||
| the routing function, which is used for each packet to provide a Reliable and | ||||
| Available service while minimizing the waste of constrained resources. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| Within the redundant solutions that are proposed by | ||||
| the routing function, the OODA Loop controls what is used for each packet and | ||||
| provides a reliable and | ||||
| available service while minimizing the waste of constrained resources. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW OODA Loop operates at the path selection time-scale to provide | The RAW OODA Loop operates at the path selection timescale to provide | |||
| agility vs. the brute-force approach of flooding the whole recovery graph. | agility versus the brute-force approach of flooding the whole recovery graph | |||
| . | ||||
| The OODA Loop controls, within the redundant solutions that are proposed | The OODA Loop controls, within the redundant solutions that are proposed | |||
| by the routing function, which is used for each packet to provide a Reliable | by the routing function, which is used for each packet to provide a reliable | |||
| and | and | |||
| Available service while minimizing the waste of constrained resources. | available service while minimizing the waste of constrained resources. | |||
| </t><t> | </t><t> | |||
| To that effect, RAW defines the Point of Local Repair (PLR), which performs | To that effect, RAW defines the Point of Local Repair (PLR), which performs | |||
| rapid local adjustments of the forwarding tables within the path diversity th at is | rapid local adjustments of the forwarding tables within the path diversity th at is | |||
| available in that in the recovery graph. The PLR enables exploitation of | available in that in the recovery graph. The PLR enables exploitation of | |||
| the richer forwarding capabilities at a faster time-scale over a portion of | the richer forwarding capabilities at a faster timescale over a portion of | |||
| the recovery graph, in either a loose or a strict fashion. | the recovery graph, in either a loose or a strict fashion. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] This sentence is difficult to follow. We updated as shown below. | ||||
| Please review and to confirm that the updated text accurately conveys the | ||||
| intended meaning. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The PLR operates on metrics that evolve faster, but that need to be | ||||
| advertised at a fast rate but only locally, within the recovery | ||||
| graph, and reacts on the metric updates by changing the DetNet path | ||||
| in use for the affected flows. | ||||
| Updated: | ||||
| The PLR operates on metrics that evolve quickly and need to be | ||||
| advertised at a fast rate (but only locally, within the recovery | ||||
| graph), and the PLR reacts to the metric updates by changing the DetNet path | ||||
| in use for the affected flows. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The PLR operates on metrics that evolve faster, but that need to be | The PLR operates on metrics that evolve quickly and need to be | |||
| advertised at a fast rate but only locally, within the recovery graph, and r | advertised at a fast rate (but only locally, within the recovery graph), and | |||
| eacts on | the PLR reacts on | |||
| the metric updates by changing the DetNet path in use for the affected | the metric updates by changing the DetNet path in use for the affected | |||
| flows. | flows. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The rapid changes in the forwarding decisions are made and contained within | The rapid changes in the forwarding decisions are made and contained within | |||
| the scope of a recovery graph and the actions of the PLR are not signaled ou tside | the scope of a recovery graph, and the actions of the PLR are not signaled o utside | |||
| the recovery graph. This is as opposed to the routing function that must obs erve | the recovery graph. This is as opposed to the routing function that must obs erve | |||
| the whole network and optimize all the recovery graphs globally, which can o nly be | the whole network and optimize all the recovery graphs globally, which can o nly be | |||
| done at a slow pace and using long-term statistical metrics, as presented in | done at a slow pace and with long-term statistical metrics, as presented in | |||
| <xref target="PCEPLRtable"/>. | <xref target="PCEPLRtable"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <table anchor="PCEPLRtable"><name>Centralized Decision vs. PLR</name> | <table anchor="PCEPLRtable"><name>Centralized Decision Versus PLR</name> | |||
| <thead> | <thead> | |||
| <tr> | <tr> | |||
| <th> </th> | <th></th> | |||
| <th align='center'> Controller Plane </th> | <th>Controller Plane</th> | |||
| <th align='center'> PLR </th> | <th>PLR</th> | |||
| </tr> | </tr> | |||
| </thead> | ||||
| </thead><tbody> | <tbody> | |||
| <tr><th>Communication</th> | ||||
| <tr><td>Communication | <td>Slow, distributed</td> | |||
| </td> | <td>Fast, local</td> | |||
| <td align='center'>Slow, distributed</td> | </tr> | |||
| <td align='center'>Fast, local</td> | <tr><th>Timescale (order)</th> | |||
| </tr> | <td>Path computation + round trip, milliseconds to seconds</td> | |||
| <td>Lookup + protection switch, micro to milliseconds</td> | ||||
| <tr><td>Time-Scale (order)</td> | </tr> | |||
| <td align='center'>Path computation + round trip, milliseconds to s | <tr><th>Network Size</th> | |||
| econds</td> | <td>Large, many recovery graphs to optimize globally</td> | |||
| <td align='center'>Lookup + protection switch, micro to millisecond | <td>Small, limited set of protection paths</td> | |||
| s</td> | </tr> | |||
| </tr> | <tr><th>Considered Metrics</th> | |||
| <td>Averaged, statistical, shade of grey</td> | ||||
| <tr><td>Network Size</td> | <td>Instantaneous values / boolean condition</td> | |||
| <td align='center'>Large, many recovery graphs to optimize globally | </tr> | |||
| </td> | ||||
| <td align='center'>Small, limited set of protection paths</td> | ||||
| </tr> | ||||
| <tr><td>Considered Metrics</td> | ||||
| <td align='center'>Averaged, statistical, shade of grey</td> | ||||
| <td align='center'>Instantaneous values / boolean condition</td> | ||||
| </tr> | ||||
| </tbody> | </tbody> | |||
| </table> | </table> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The PLR sits in the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer of Edge and Relay Nodes. | The PLR sits in the DetNet Forwarding sub-layer of Edge and Relay Nodes. | |||
| The PLR operates on the packet flow, learning the recovery graph and | The PLR operates on the packet flow, learning the recovery graph and | |||
| path-selection information from the packet, possibly making a local decision and | path-selection information from the packet and possibly making a local decis ion and | |||
| retagging the packet to indicate so. On the other hand, the PLR interacts | retagging the packet to indicate so. On the other hand, the PLR interacts | |||
| with the lower layers (through triggers and DLEP) and with its peers | with the lower layers (through triggers and DLEP) and with its peers | |||
| (through OAM) to obtain up-to-date information about its links and | (through OAM) to obtain up-to-date information about its links and | |||
| the quality of the overall recovery graph, respectively, as illustrated in | the quality of the overall recovery graph, respectively, as illustrated in | |||
| <xref target="Figlearn"/>. | <xref target="Figlearn"/>. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <figure anchor="Figlearn"> | <figure anchor="Figlearn"> | |||
| <name>PLR Conceptual Interfaces</name> | <name>PLR Conceptual Interfaces</name> | |||
| <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[ | |||
| | | | | |||
| packet | going | Packet | going | |||
| down the | stack | down the | stack | |||
| +==========v==========+=====================+===================+ | +==========v==========+=====================+===================+ | |||
| |(In-situ OAM + iCTRL)| (L2 Triggers, DLEP) | (Hybrid OAM) | | |(In-situ OAM + iCTRL)| (L2 triggers, DLEP) | (Hybrid OAM) | | |||
| +==========v==========+=====================+===================+ | +==========v==========+=====================+===================+ | |||
| | Learn from | | Learn from | | | Learn from | | Learn from | | |||
| | packet tagging > Maintain < end-to-end | | | packet tagging > Maintain < end-to-end | | |||
| +----------v----------+ Forwarding | OAM packets | | +----------v----------+ Forwarding | OAM packets | | |||
| | Forwarding decision < State +---------^---------| | | Forwarding decision < State +---------^---------| | |||
| +----------v----------+ | Enrich or | | +----------v----------+ | Enrich or | | |||
| + Retag Packet | Learn abstracted > Regenerate | | + Retag packet | Learn abstracted > regenerate | | |||
| | and Forward | metrics about Links | OAM packets | | | and forward | metrics about links | OAM packets | | |||
| +..........v..........+..........^..........+........^.v........+ | +..........v..........+..........^..........+........^.v........+ | |||
| | Lower layers | | | Lower layers | | |||
| +..........v.....................^...................^.v........+ | +..........v.....................^...................^.v........+ | |||
| frame | sent Frame | L2 Ack Active | | OAM | Frame | sent Frame | L2 ack Active | | OAM | |||
| over | wireless In | In and | | out | over | wireless in | in and | | out | |||
| v | | v | v | | v | |||
| ]]></artwork> | ]]></artwork> | |||
| </figure> | </figure> | |||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--PCE vs. PLR--> | ||||
| <!-- 11111111111111111 --> | ||||
| <section anchor="reliability" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="reliability" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Act: DetNet Path Selection and Reliability Functions</name> | <name>Act: DetNet Path Selection and Reliability Functions</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The main action by the PLR is the swapping of the DetNet Path within the | The main action by the PLR is the swapping of the DetNet Path within the | |||
| recovery graph for the future packets. | recovery graph for the future packets. | |||
| The candidate DetNet Paths represent different energy and spectrum profiles, | The candidate DetNet Paths represent different energy and spectrum profiles | |||
| and provide protection against different failures. | and provide protection against different failures. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "more typical to wireless than wired". | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| The LL API enriches the DetNet protection services (PREOF) with | ||||
| potential possibility to interact with lower-layer one-hop | ||||
| reliability functions that are more typical to wireless than wired, | ||||
| including ARQ, FEC, and other techniques such as overhearing and | ||||
| constructive interferences. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| The LL API enriches the DetNet protection services (PREOF) with the | ||||
| possibility to interact with lower-layer, one-hop | ||||
| reliability functions that are more typical with wireless links than with wir | ||||
| ed ones, | ||||
| including ARQ, FEC, and other techniques such as overhearing and | ||||
| constructive interferences. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t>The LL API enriches the DetNet protection services (PREOF) | <t>The LL API enriches the DetNet protection services (PREOF) | |||
| with potential possibility to interact with lower-layer one-hop reliability | with the possibility to interact with lower-layer, one-hop reliability | |||
| functions that are more typical to wireless than wired, including ARQ, FEC, | functions that are more typical to wireless than wired, including ARQ, FEC, | |||
| and other techniques such as overhearing and constructive interferences. | and other techniques such as overhearing and constructive interferences. | |||
| Because RAW may be leveraged on wired links, | Because RAW may be leveraged on wired links | |||
| e.g., to save power, it is not expected that all lower layers support all | (e.g., to save power), it is not expected that all lower layers support all | |||
| those capabilities. | those capabilities. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW provides hints to the lower-layer services on the desired outcome, and | RAW provides hints to the lower-layer services on the desired outcome, and | |||
| the lower layer acts on those hints to provide the best approximation of | the lower layer acts on those hints to provide the best approximation of | |||
| that outcome, e.g., a level of reliability for one-hop transmission within | that outcome, e.g., a level of reliability for one-hop transmission within | |||
| a bounded budget of time and/or energy. Thus, the LL API makes possible | a bounded budget of time and/or energy. Thus, the LL API makes possible | |||
| cross-layer optimization for reliability depending on the actual | cross-layer optimization for reliability depending on the actual | |||
| abstraction provided. That is, some reliability functions are controlled | abstraction provided. That is, some reliability functions are controlled | |||
| from Layer-3 using an abstract interface, while they are really operated at | from Layer 3 using an abstract interface, while they are really operated at | |||
| the lower layers. | the lower layers. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The RAW Path Selection can be implemented in both centralized and | The RAW Path Selection can be implemented in both centralized and | |||
| distributed approaches. | distributed approaches. | |||
| In the centralized approach, the PLR may obtain a set of pre-computed DetNet | In the centralized approach, the PLR may obtain a set of pre-computed DetNet | |||
| paths matching a set of expected failures, and apply the appropriate DetNet | paths matching a set of expected failures and apply the appropriate DetNet | |||
| paths for the current state of the wireless links. | paths for the current state of the wireless links. | |||
| In the distributed approach, the signaling in the packet may be more | In the distributed approach, the signaling in the packet may be more | |||
| abstract than an explicit Path, and the PLR decision might be revised along | abstract than an explicit Path, and the PLR decision might be revised along | |||
| the selected DetNet Path based on a better knowledge of the rest of the way. | the selected DetNet Path based on a better knowledge of the rest of the way. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| The dynamic DetNet Path selection in RAW avoids the waste of critical | The dynamic DetNet Path selection in RAW avoids the waste of critical | |||
| resources such as spectrum and energy while providing for the | resources such as spectrum and energy while providing for the | |||
| assured SLA, e.g., by rerouting and/or adding redundancy only when a | assured SLA, e.g., by rerouting and/or adding redundancy only when a | |||
| loss spike is observed. | loss spike is observed. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section> <!-- Act: The reliability Functions--> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!-- The RAW Control Loop --> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | </section> | |||
| <section anchor="SecurityConsiderations" numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section anchor="SecurityConsiderations" numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Security Considerations</name> | <name>Security Considerations</name> | |||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Collocated Denial of Service Attacks</name> | <name>Collocated Denial-of-Service Attacks</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| RAW leverages diversity (e.g., spatial and time diversity, | RAW leverages diversity (e.g., spatial and time diversity, | |||
| coding diversity, and frequency diversity), possibly using | coding diversity, and frequency diversity), possibly using | |||
| heterogeneous wired and wireless networking technologies over different phys ical paths, | heterogeneous wired and wireless networking technologies over different phys ical paths, | |||
| to increase the reliability and availability in the face of unpredictable | to increase reliability and availability in the face of unpredictable | |||
| conditions. While this is not done specifically to defeat an attacker, the | conditions. While this is not done specifically to defeat an attacker, the | |||
| amount of diversity used in RAW defeats possible attacks that would | amount of diversity used in RAW defeats possible attacks that would | |||
| impact a particular technology or a specific path. | impact a particular technology or a specific path. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Physical actions by a collocated attacker such as a radio interference | Physical actions by a collocated attacker such as a radio interference | |||
| may still lower the reliability of an end-to-end RAW transmission by blocki ng one segment or one | may still lower the reliability of an end-to-end RAW transmission by blocki ng one segment or one | |||
| possible path. But if an alternate path with diverse frequency, location, an d/or technology, is | possible path. However, if an alternate path with diverse frequency, locatio n, and/or technology is | |||
| available, then RAW adapts by rerouting the impacted traffic over the prefer red alternates, | available, then RAW adapts by rerouting the impacted traffic over the prefer red alternates, | |||
| which defeats the attack after a limited period of lower reliability. | which defeats the attack after a limited period of lower reliability. | |||
| Then again, the security benefit is a side-effect of an action that is taken | Then again, the security benefit is a side effect of an action that is taken | |||
| regardless of whether the source of the | regardless of whether or not the source of the | |||
| issue is voluntary (an attack) or not. | issue is voluntary (an attack). | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section><!-- Collocated Denial of Service Attacks --> | </section> | |||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Layer-2 encryption</name> | <name>Layer 2 Encryption</name> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Radio networks typically encrypt at the MAC layer to protect the | Radio networks typically encrypt at the Media Access Control (MAC) layer to | |||
| transmission. If the encryption is per-pair of peers, then certain | protect the | |||
| transmission. If the encryption is per pair of peers, then certain | ||||
| RAW operations like promiscuous overhearing become impractical. | RAW operations like promiscuous overhearing become impractical. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section><!-- Layer-2 encryption --> | </section> | |||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>Forced Access</name> | <name>Forced Access</name> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Should "may typically select" be updated to "may select" or | ||||
| "typically selects"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| A RAW policy may typically select the cheapest collection of links | ||||
| that matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi vs. paid 3GPP | ||||
| access. | ||||
| Perhaps: | ||||
| A RAW policy may select the cheapest collection of links | ||||
| that matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi vs. paid 3GPP | ||||
| access. | ||||
| Or: | ||||
| A RAW policy typically selects the cheapest collection of links | ||||
| that matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi vs. paid 3GPP | ||||
| access. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| A RAW policy may typically select the cheapest collection of links that | A RAW policy may typically select the cheapest collection of links that | |||
| matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi vs. paid 3GPP access. By | matches the requested SLA, e.g., use free Wi-Fi versus paid 3GPP access. By | |||
| defeating the cheap connectivity (e.g., PHY-layer interference) the attacker | defeating the cheap connectivity (e.g., PHY-layer interference) the attacker | |||
| can force an End System to use the paid access and increase the cost of the | can force an End System to use the paid access and increase the cost of the | |||
| transmission for the user. | transmission for the user. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| <t> | <t> | |||
| Similar attacks may also be used to deplete resources in lower-power | Similar attacks may also be used to deplete resources in lower-power | |||
| nodes by forcing additional transmissions for FEC and ARQ, and attack | nodes by forcing additional transmissions for FEC and ARQ, and attack | |||
| metrics such as battery life of the nodes. By affecting the transmissions | metrics such as battery life of the nodes. By affecting the transmissions | |||
| and the associated routing metrics in one area, an attacker may force | and the associated routing metrics in one area, an attacker may force | |||
| the traffic and cause congestion along a remote path, thus reducing | the traffic and cause congestion along a remote path, thus reducing | |||
| the overall throughput of the network. | the overall throughput of the network. | |||
| </t> | </t> | |||
| </section><!-- Forced Access --> | </section> | |||
| <!-- 111111111111111111111 --> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--Security Considerations--> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | |||
| <name>IANA Considerations</name> | <name>IANA Considerations</name> | |||
| <t>This document has no IANA actions. | <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t> | |||
| </t> | ||||
| </section> | ||||
| <!--IANA Considerations--> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | ||||
| <section numbered="true" toc="default"> | ||||
| <name>Contributors</name> | ||||
| <t>The editor wishes to thank the following individuals | ||||
| for their contributions to the text and ideas exposed in this document: | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <dl> | ||||
| <dt>Lou Berger:</dt><dd>LabN Consulting, L.L.C, lberger@labn.net</dd> | ||||
| <!--dt>Janos Farkas:</dt><dd>Erisson, Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com</dd--> | ||||
| <dt>Xavi Vilajosana:</dt><dd>Wireless Networks Research Lab, Universitat Obe | ||||
| rta de Catalunya, xvilajosana@gmail.com</dd> | ||||
| <dt>Geogios Papadopolous:</dt><dd>IMT Atlantique , georgios.papadopoulos@i | ||||
| mt-atlantique.fr</dd> | ||||
| <dt>Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis:</dt><dd>IMT Atlantique, remous-aris.koutsiaman | ||||
| is@imt-atlantique.fr </dd> | ||||
| <dt>Rex Buddenberg:</dt><dd>retired, buddenbergr@gmail.com</dd> | ||||
| <dt>Greg Mirsky:</dt><dd>Ericsson, gregimirsky@gmail.com</dd> | ||||
| </dl> | ||||
| </section> | </section> | |||
| <!--ConTributors--> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | ||||
| <section><name>Acknowledgments</name> | ||||
| <t>This architecture could never have been completed without the support and | ||||
| recommendations from the DetNet Chairs Janos Farkas and Lou Berger, and | ||||
| Dave Black, the DetNet Tech Advisor. | ||||
| Many thanks to all of you. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t>The authors wish to thank Ketan Talaulikar, as well as Balazs Varga, Dave | ||||
| Cavalcanti, Don Fedyk, | ||||
| Nicolas Montavont, and Fabrice Theoleyre for their in-depth reviews during | ||||
| the development of this document. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t>The authors wish to thank Acee Lindem, Eva Schooler, Rich Salz, Wesley Edd | ||||
| y, Behcet Sarikaya, Brian Haberman, | ||||
| Gorry Fairhurst, Eric Vyncke, Erik Kline, Roman Danyliw, and Dave Thaler, for | ||||
| their reviews and comments during the IETF Last Call / IESG review cycle. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t> | ||||
| Special thanks for Mohamed Boucadair, Giuseppe Fioccola, and Benoit Claise, | ||||
| for their help dealing with OAM technologies. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| </section> | ||||
| <!-- Acknowledgments --> | ||||
| <!-- 000000000000000000000 --> | ||||
| </middle> | </middle> | |||
| <back> | <back> | |||
| <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-raw-technologies" to="RAW-TECHNOS"/> | <displayreference target="RFC9913" to="RAW-TECHNOS"/> | |||
| <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-raw-use-cases" to="RAW-USE-CASES"/> | <displayreference target="RFC9450" to="RAW-USE-CASES"/> | |||
| <displayreference target="RFC1122" to="INT-ARCHI"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC9522" to="TE"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC8175" to="DLEP"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC7490" to="RLFA-FRR"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC5714" to="FRR"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC8938" to="DetNet-DP"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC8655" to="DetNet-ARCHI"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC9030" to="6TiSCH-ARCHI"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC9551" to="DetNet-OAM"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC1122" to="INT-ARCHI"/> | <displayreference target="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework" to="De | |||
| <displayreference target="RFC9522" to="TE"/> | tNet-PLANE"/> | |||
| <displayreference target="RFC8175" to="DLEP"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC7490" to="RLFA-FRR"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC5714" to="FRR"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC8938" to="DetNet-DP"/> | ||||
| <!--displayreference target="RFC9016" to="DetNet-Flow"/--> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC8655" to="DetNet-ARCHI"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC9030" to="6TiSCH-ARCHI"/> | ||||
| <displayreference target="RFC9551" to="DetNet-OAM"/> | ||||
| <references> | <references> | |||
| <name>References</name> | <name>References</name> | |||
| <references> | <references> | |||
| <name>Normative References</name> | <name>Normative References</name> | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized | |||
| .ietf-raw-technologies.xml"/> | or left in their current order? | |||
| <!-- Reliable and Available Wireless Technologies --> | --> | |||
| <!-- [RFC9913 / RAW_TECHNOS] | ||||
| draft-ietf-raw-technologies-17 | ||||
| companion doc RFC 9913 | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <reference anchor="RFC9913" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9913"> | ||||
| <front> | ||||
| <title>Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW) Technologies</title> | ||||
| <author initials="P." surname="Thubert" fullname="Pascal Thubert" role="edit | ||||
| or"> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="D." surname="Cavalcanti" fullname="Dave Cavalcanti"> | ||||
| <organization>Intel Corporation</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="X." surname="Vilajosana" fullname="Xavier Vilajosana"> | ||||
| <organization>Universitat Oberta de Catalunya</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="C." surname="Schmitt" fullname="Corinna Schmitt"> | ||||
| <organization>Research Institute CODE, UniBw M</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="J." surname="Farkas" fullname="János Farkas"> | ||||
| <organization>Ericsson</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <date month='February' year='2026'/> | ||||
| </front> | ||||
| <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9913"/> | ||||
| <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9913"/> | ||||
| </reference> | ||||
| <reference anchor="TSN" target="https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/"> | <reference anchor="TSN" target="https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/"> | |||
| <front> | <front> | |||
| <title>Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)</title> | <title>Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)</title> | |||
| <author> | <author> | |||
| <organization>IEEE</organization> | <organization>IEEE</organization> | |||
| </author> | </author> | |||
| <date/> | <date/> | |||
| </front> | </front> | |||
| </reference> | </reference> | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4427. | |||
| 9030.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- 6TiSCH Architecture --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6291. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7799. | |||
| 4427.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Internet Architecture --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8557. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8655. | |||
| .6291.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM" Acronym in the IETF --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9551. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .7799.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Active and Passive Metrics and Methods for OAM --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .8557.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- DetNet problem statement --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .8655.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Deterministic Networking Architecture --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .9551.xml"/> | ||||
| </references> | </references> | |||
| <!--Normative References--> | ||||
| <references> | <references> | |||
| <name>Informative References</name> | <name>Informative References</name> | |||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9030. | |||
| .9049.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9049. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1122. | |||
| 1122.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Internet Architecture --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8939. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8578. | |||
| .8939.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Deterministic Networking IP dataplane --> | <!-- [RAW-USE-CASES] | |||
| --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9450. | |||
| .8578.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- Deterministic Networking Use Cases --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0791. | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | xml"/> | |||
| .ietf-raw-use-cases.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2205. | |||
| <!-- RAW use cases --> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9522. | |||
| .0791.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- IP --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9544. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655. | |||
| .2205.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- RSVP --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3366. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4090. | |||
| .9522.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- TE --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880. | |||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | xml"/> | |||
| .9544.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5714. | |||
| xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6378. | |||
| .4655.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <!-- PCE --> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6551. | |||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | xml"/> | |||
| .3366.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7490. | |||
| <!-- Advice to link designers on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ) --> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8724. | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | xml"/> | |||
| .4090.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8938. | |||
| <!-- Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE --> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8175. | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | xml"/> | |||
| .5880.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9378. | |||
| <!-- BFD --> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762. | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | xml"/> | |||
| .5714.xml"/> | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9473. | |||
| <!-- IP Fast Reroute Framework --> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. | <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9633. | |||
| 6378.xml"/> | xml"/> | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC. | ||||
| 6551.xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .7490.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR) --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .8724.xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .8938.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane Framework --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .8175.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol --> | ||||
| <!--xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference. | ||||
| RFC.9016.xml"/--> | ||||
| <!-- Flow and Service Information Model for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) - | ||||
| -> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC | ||||
| .9378.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- Framework of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Determi | ||||
| nistic Networking (DetNet) --> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF | ||||
| C.8762.xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF | ||||
| C.9473.xml"/> | ||||
| <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF | ||||
| C.9633.xml"/> | ||||
| <!-- | <!-- | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-14 | |||
| .ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization"/> | IESG State: IESG Evaluation::AD Followup as of 09/18/25 | |||
| --> | --> | |||
| <xi:include href="http://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D | ||||
| .ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework"/> | <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework" target="https://d | |||
| atatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-14"> | ||||
| <front> | ||||
| <title>A Framework for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane< | ||||
| /title> | ||||
| <author initials="A. G." surname="Malis" fullname="Andrew G. Malis"> | ||||
| <organization>Independent</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="X." surname="Geng" fullname="Xuesong Geng" role="editor" | ||||
| > | ||||
| <organization>Huawei</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="M." surname="Chen" fullname="Mach Chen"> | ||||
| <organization>Huawei</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="B." surname="Varga" fullname="Balazs Varga"> | ||||
| <organization>Ericsson</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <author initials="C. J." surname="Bernardos" fullname="Carlos J. Bernardos | ||||
| "> | ||||
| <organization>Universidad Carlos III de Madrid</organization> | ||||
| </author> | ||||
| <date month="September" day="9" year="2025" /> | ||||
| </front> | ||||
| <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-f | ||||
| ramework-14" /> | ||||
| </reference> | ||||
| <reference anchor="NASA1" target="https://extapps.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/D ocuments/150814-3bWhatIsReliability.pdf"> | <reference anchor="NASA1" target="https://extapps.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/D ocuments/150814-3bWhatIsReliability.pdf"> | |||
| <front> | <front> | |||
| <title>RELIABILITY: Definition & Quantitative Illustration</title> | <title>RELIABILITY: Definition & Quantitative Illustration</title> | |||
| <author initials="T." surname="Adams" fullname="Tim Adams" > | <author initials="T." surname="Adams" fullname="Tim Adams" > | |||
| <organization>NASA</organization> | <organization>NASA</organization> | |||
| </author> | </author> | |||
| <date/> | <date/> | |||
| </front> | </front> | |||
| </reference> | </reference> | |||
| skipping to change at line 2181 ¶ | skipping to change at line 2826 ¶ | |||
| <reference anchor="NASA2" target="https://extapps.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/Do cuments/160727.1_Availability_What_is_it.pdf"> | <reference anchor="NASA2" target="https://extapps.ksc.nasa.gov/Reliability/Do cuments/160727.1_Availability_What_is_it.pdf"> | |||
| <front> | <front> | |||
| <title>Availability</title> | <title>Availability</title> | |||
| <author initials="T." surname="Adams" fullname="Tim Adams" > | <author initials="T." surname="Adams" fullname="Tim Adams" > | |||
| <organization>NASA</organization> | <organization>NASA</organization> | |||
| </author> | </author> | |||
| <date/> | <date/> | |||
| </front> | </front> | |||
| </reference> | </reference> | |||
| <!--Informative References--> | ||||
| </references> | </references> | |||
| </references> | </references> | |||
| <section numbered="false"> | ||||
| <name>Acknowledgments</name> | ||||
| <t>This architecture could never have been completed without the support | ||||
| and recommendations from the DetNet chairs <contact fullname="Janos | ||||
| Farkas"/> and <contact fullname="Lou Berger"/>, and from <contact fullname="D | ||||
| ave | ||||
| Black"/>, the DetNet Tech Advisor. Many thanks to all of you. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t>The authors wish to thank <contact fullname="Ketan Talaulikar"/>, as | ||||
| well as <contact fullname="Balazs Varga"/>, <contact fullname="Dave | ||||
| Cavalcanti"/>, <contact fullname="Don Fedyk"/>, <contact fullname="Nicolas | ||||
| Montavont"/>, and <contact fullname="Fabrice Theoleyre"/> for their | ||||
| in-depth reviews during the development of this document. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t>The authors wish to thank <contact fullname="Acee Lindem"/>, <contact | ||||
| fullname="Eva Schooler"/>, <contact fullname="Rich Salz"/>, <contact | ||||
| fullname="Wesley Eddy"/>, <contact fullname="Behcet Sarikaya"/>, <contact | ||||
| fullname="Brian Haberman"/>, <contact fullname="Gorry Fairhurst"/>, | ||||
| <contact fullname="Éric Vyncke"/>, <contact fullname="Erik Kline"/>, | ||||
| <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, and <contact fullname="Dave Thaler"/> | ||||
| for their reviews and comments during the IETF Last Call and IESG review | ||||
| cycle. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <t> | ||||
| Special thanks for <contact fullname="Mohamed Boucadair"/>, <contact | ||||
| fullname="Giuseppe Fioccola"/>, and <contact fullname="Benoit Claise"/> | ||||
| for their help dealing with OAM technologies. | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| </section> | ||||
| <section numbered="false" toc="default"> | ||||
| <name>Contributors</name> | ||||
| <t>The editor wishes to thank the following individuals | ||||
| for their contributions to the text and the ideas discussed in this doc | ||||
| ument: | ||||
| </t> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Lou Berger"> | ||||
| <organization>LabN Consulting, L.L.C</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>lberger@labn.net</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Xavi Vilajosana"> | ||||
| <organization>Wireless Networks Research Lab, Universitat Oberta de Catalu | ||||
| nya</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>xvilajosana@gmail.com</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Geogios Papadopolous"> | ||||
| <organization>IMT Atlantique</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis"> | ||||
| <organization>IMT Atlantique</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>remous-aris.koutsiamanis@imt-atlantique.fr</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Rex Buddenberg"> | ||||
| <organization>Retired</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>buddenbergr@gmail.com</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| <contact fullname="Greg Mirsky"> | ||||
| <organization>Ericsson</organization> | ||||
| <address> | ||||
| <email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email> | ||||
| </address> | ||||
| </contact> | ||||
| </section> | ||||
| </back> | </back> | |||
| </rfc> | </rfc> | |||
| <!-- [rfced] Terminology: | ||||
| a) "sub-layer" (with hyphen) is used consistently in this document, but | ||||
| "sublayer" (no hyphen) is used in the other documents in cluster 538 | ||||
| (draft-ietf-raw-technologies and draft-ietf-roll-dao-projection). May we | ||||
| update usage in this document to align with the other documents in the | ||||
| cluster? Note that we see mixed usage in past RFCs; for example, RFC 9030 | ||||
| uses "sublayer", but RFC 8655 uses "sub-layer". | ||||
| b) We note the following capitalization inconsistencies in the names of | ||||
| nodes. Please review and let us know how to update for consistency. | ||||
| RAW Node | ||||
| RAW node | ||||
| Ingress Node | ||||
| Ingress node | ||||
| Egress Node | ||||
| Egress node | ||||
| DetNet Edge nodes | ||||
| DetNet Edge Nodes | ||||
| edge nodes | ||||
| DetNet Transit Nodes | ||||
| DetNet Transit nodes | ||||
| transit node | ||||
| DetNet Relay Node | ||||
| c) We also note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should | ||||
| these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. | ||||
| RAW OAM | ||||
| RAW / OAM | ||||
| DetNet Path | ||||
| DetNet path | ||||
| Protection Path | ||||
| protection path | ||||
| path selection | ||||
| Path selection (i.e., DetNet Path selection) | ||||
| Path Selection (i.e., RAW Path Selection) | ||||
| Control Loop | ||||
| control loop | ||||
| OODA Loop | ||||
| OODA loop | ||||
| Segment | ||||
| segment | ||||
| Ingress | ||||
| ingress | ||||
| Egress | ||||
| egress | ||||
| DetNet Forwarding sub-layer | ||||
| DetNet forwarding sub-layer | ||||
| Controller Plane | ||||
| controller plane | ||||
| d) FYI - We updated "gNb" to "gNB" to align with usage in RFC-to-be 9913 aka | ||||
| draft-ietf-raw-technologies-17 and other documents in the RFC Series. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations | ||||
| a) Below is the first instance of "PHY" in this document. How should this be | ||||
| expanded? As "Physical"? | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Furthermore, the different RAW technologies are equipped with | ||||
| different reliability features, e.g., short range broadcast, | ||||
| Multiple-User, Multiple-Input, and Multiple-Output (MUMIMO), PHY rate | ||||
| and other Modulation Coding Scheme (MCS) adaptation, coding and | ||||
| retransmissions methods, constructive interference and overhearing, | ||||
| see [RAW-TECHNOS] for details. | ||||
| b) FYI - We updated the expansion of SNR as follows to align with the | ||||
| expansion used in previous RFCs. | ||||
| Original: | ||||
| Signal-Noise Ratio | ||||
| Updated: | ||||
| Signal-to-Noise Ratio | ||||
| c) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use | ||||
| per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each | ||||
| expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. | ||||
| Deterministic Networking (DetNet) | ||||
| Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) | ||||
| Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) | ||||
| Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) | ||||
| Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) | ||||
| Media Access Control (MAC) | ||||
| --> | ||||
| <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online | ||||
| Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> | ||||
| and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically | ||||
| result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. | ||||
| Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should | ||||
| still be reviewed as a best practice. | ||||
| --> | ||||
| End of changes. 345 change blocks. | ||||
| 1002 lines changed or deleted | 1683 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. | ||||