Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13> for your review (round 2)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alice!

Please see below:

On 07/07/2023 00:35, Alice Russo wrote:
> Gorry and Martin (as AD),
>
> Martin,
> Please review and let us know if you approve the changes listed below. 
> They are also visible in this diff file: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-auth48diff.html
>
> - Section 3.1: text added re: Best Effort and CS0.
> - Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, and 6.3: one sentence added at start of each.
> - Figures 2, 3, and 5: new titles.
>
> The last 2 are per "cross-area INT review":
> - Section 4: added text defining unknown DSCP and unexpected DSCP.
> - Section 5.1.1: sentence deleted. ("This aligned with the now 
> deprecated use of CS1 as the codepoint for the Lower Effort service, 
> as previously specified in [RFC4594].")
> --
>
> Gorry,
> Thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised 
> files are here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.xml
>
> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-auth48diff.html
>
> Re: #6  ("being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then forwarded")
>> GF: I'd prefer to NOT change.  The ampersand here represents a 
>> "bit-wise and". If this does need to be clarified please propose 
>> something.
>
> Thanks for clarifying. In RFCs, we see it written out as "bitwise 
> AND". Below are examples of how it has been defined in some recentish 
> RFCs. Perhaps add ("&" represents the bitwise AND operator) after the 
> sentence?
>
> *rfc6225.txt**:**"&" is a **bitwise AND*
> *rfc7188.txt**:**where "bitand" denotes a **bitwise AND*
> *rfc8439.txt**:**Where "&=" is the C language **bitwise 
> AND**assignment operator.*
> *rfc8554.txt**:**AND : a AND b denotes the **bitwise AND**of the two 
> nonnegative*
> *rfc8881.txt**:**("&" represents the **bitwise AND**operator)*
> *rfc9189.txt**:**  i & j **bitwise AND**of unsigned integers i and j.*
>
* Re: #6  ("being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then forwarded")

The proposed resolution is to add a definition to the end of section 2 
to define'&':
NEW:
In this document, the symbol "&" denotes a bitwise AND of two unsigned 
values.

---
>
> Re: #11, we updated the figure titles as requested, but the question 
> was actually about tables.
* We suggest the best way to address the question regarding the table 
headings is to add text below the first use of the table, as below:
OLD:
    The DSCP space is shown in the following table.
NEW:
    The DSCP space is shown in the following table. Each row corresponds 
to one setting of the the first three bits of the DSCP field and each 
column to one setting of the the last three bits of the DSCP field.

---
> Specifically, should there be any column or row labels added to Table 
> 2 or 3?
>
> Re:
>> We could add a title row above the bit pattern with the bit number 
>> within the DS field:
>>
>> ADD NEW:
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | ...
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> We added this bit ruler, but it's longer than the bits provided; 
> please tell us how Figures 2, 3, and 5 should be updated.
>
* Sorry!!! The following were a result of requested changes, but were 
incorrect, can you please update as shown below:

Figure 2 (This should be a 6b field):

OLD:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0|x x x|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0|x x x|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Figure 3 (This should be a 6b field):
OLD:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 1|x x x|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+

NEW:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0|x x x|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 4 (This should be consistent with 2,3 as a 6b field):

OLD:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x x x|. . .|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x x x|. . .|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 5:
OLD:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x x x|0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NEW:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|5|4|3|2|1|0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x x x|0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Re:
>> 1. An updated citation for  [IEEE.802.11] is: [...]  802.11-2016
>
> Updated as requested. FYI, the page says it was superseded 
> by 802.11-2020. Please let us know if you want to update the reference 
> to that.
>
* - Yes please update.
> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
> the AUTH48 status of your document:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9435
>
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar

* After cross-checking your uypdated text with the RFCs and IEE spec, we 
would like to consistently use the IEEE usage of the term AC. We 
understand that the use of "Access Classes" in RFC8325 is less correct, 
and was inconsistent in that RFC, so please update as follows:

OLD
The IEEE 802.11 standards [IEEE-802.11] provide Media Access Control 
(MAC) functions to support QoS in WLANs using Access Classes (AC).
NEW:
The IEEE 802.11 standards [IEEE-802.11] provide Media Access Control 
(MAC) functions to support QoS in WLANs using Access Categories (ACs).
---
* The following requested change was actually ambiguous  (sorry) as to 
whether all bits were set to 1 or the combined field had a value of 1. 
Please change:
OLD:
This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits have a 
value of 1.

NEW:
This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits 
together represent a value of 1 (i.e., 0b001).

---

Please could you also correct some typos:

* Please insert /the/:
OLD:
  defined by IETF,
NEW:
  defined by the IETF,
---
* Two use of the word /new/ in the same sentence seems more than needed 
in the abstract, the new part is the DSCP assignment:

OLD:
This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended 
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per-Hop 
Behavior (PHB).
NEW:
This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended 
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for a standard Per-Hop 
Behavior (PHB).

---

Thanks for preparing this document. All the editors have now read the 
text and we expect to approve the next version after we confirm these 
updates.

Best wishes,

Gorry

>
>> On Jul 4, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you we have now reviewed your changes, we were quite impressed 
>> at the level of attention to detail.
>>
>> Please see our comments and replies marked "GF", and some additional 
>> requests at the end.
>>
>> We plan to complete a full review and approve this, once these 
>> changes have been implemented.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Gorry
>>
>> ====
>>
>> Authors,
>>
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as 
>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as 
>> follows.
>>
>> Original: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ 
>> Codepoint
>> (DSCP)
>>
>> Current: Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated
>> Services Code Point (DSCP)
>> -->
>>
>> GF: Works for me.
>>
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Repeated references
>>
>> a) Since "[RFC2474]" was cited twice in this sentence, and no other
>> citation was present, we placed it at the end of the sentence.
>>
>> Original:
>> It provides differentiated traffic forwarding
>> based on the DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] carried in the
>> DiffServ field [RFC2474] of the IP packet header.
>>
>> Current:
>> It provides differentiated traffic forwarding
>> based on the DSCP carried in the Diffserv field of the IP packet 
>> header [RFC2474].
>>
>> GF: Works for me.
>>
>> b) Similarly, since "[RFC4594]" was cited twice in this sentence, we 
>> placed this reference at the end of the sentence.
>>
>> Original:
>> DiffServ associates traffic with a service class [RFC4594] and
>> categorises it into Behavior Aggregates [RFC4594].
>> Suggested:
>> Diffserv associates traffic with a service class and
>> categorizes it into Behavior Aggregates [RFC4594]. -->
>>
>> GF: Works for me.
>>
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have updated this text to:
>> - cite RFC 2474 because it's the source of the quote, and
>> - change "standards" to "standardized" to match the source, and
>> - include the phrase "if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" because it's in 
>> the source.
>> Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
>>
>> Original:
>> This was initially available for experimental (EXP) or Local Use
>> (LU), but was originally specified to be "preferentially utilized
>> for standards assignments" if Pool 1 is ever exhausted.
>> Current:
>> This was initially available for Experimental (EXP) Use or Local Use
>> (LU), but was originally specified to be "preferentially utilized
>> for standardized assignments if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" [RFC2474]. -->
>>
>> GF: Works for me.
>>
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the quoted text does not appear in 
>> RFC 8436. Please review and let us know how this may be updated.
>> Perhaps you intended the "NEW" text in Section 3 of RFC 8436
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8436#section-3)?
>>
>> Original:
>> Pool 3
>> codepoints are now "utilized for standards assignments and are no
>> longer available for assignment to experimental or local use"
>> [RFC8436].
>> Perhaps:
>> Pool 3
>> codepoints are now "utilized for standardized assignments (replacing
>> the previous availability for experimental or local use)" [RFC8436]. -->
>>
>> GF: Works for me.
>>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Regarding Table 2 references:
>>
>> a) Neither "Best Effort" nor "CS0" is mentioned in RFC 2474. How 
>> should the second row be updated?
>>
>> GF: Correct - but Class Selector mapping is - this is confusing. A 
>> sentence or two here would be better to explain these rather 
>> complicated equivalent words.
>>
>> OLD:
>> *BE (Best Effort),*  also known as*"CS0",*  describes the default forwarding treatment.
>> NEW:
>> The Default PHB is defined in section 4.1 of [RFC2474]. This provides 
>> Best Effort (BE) forwarding, and the recommended DSCP of *'000000' 
>> *(section 4.2.2.1  of [RFC2474]). This
>> is the lowest value in the set of Class Selector (CS) DSCPs, and 
>> hence is also known as "CS0" 
>> [https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml].
>>
>> GF: I realise this may also move the definition of CS earlier, please 
>> check and correct.
>>
>> b) "Voice Admit" nor "VA" appears in RFC 5865.
>> How should it be updated?
>>
>> GF: RFC 5865 uses "VOICE-ADMIT" as the name
>> GF: It seems industry uses VA as an abbreivation, I'd like to propose 
>> we keep this (see also below on a caption change).
>>
>> Perhaps it refers to Call Admission Control?
>> GF: No: This is not the same thing.
>>
>> Current:
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | CS | Class Selector | [RFC2474] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | BE | Best Effort (CS0) | [RFC2474] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | AF | Assured Forwarding | [RFC2597] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | EF | Expedited Forwarding | [RFC3246] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | VA | Voice Admit | [RFC5865] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
>> | LE | Lower Effort | [RFC8622] |
>> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - + -->
>>
>> GF: There is no reason to say "Used in Published RFCs", although that 
>> was the goal, so I suggest:
>>
>> OLD:
>> Table 2: Summary of the DSCP Abbreviations Used in Published RFCs
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> Table 2: Abbreviations for DSCPs and PHB Groups
>>
>>
>>
>> 6) <!--[rfced] Regarding use of ampersand in Section 4.2.1, may it be 
>> replaced with "and" or is the symbol preferred?
>>
>> Original:
>> ... result in the DSCP being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then 
>> forwarded using the PHB specified...
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> ... result in the DSCP being re-marked to 'x' and 0x07 and then 
>> forwarded using the PHB specified...
>> -->
>> GF: I'd prefer to NOT change.  The ampersand here represents a 
>> "bit-wise and". If this does need to be
>> clarified please propose something.
>>
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] What do "Section 5.1.2" and "Section 4.1" refer to -
>> sections within RFC 8325, IEEE 802.11 UP, or this RFC?
>> Original:
>> RFC8325 [RFC8325] notes inconsistencies that can result from such re-
>> marking, and recommends a different mapping to perform this re-
>> marking, dependent on the direction in which a packet is forwarded.
>> It provides recommendations for mapping a DSCP to an IEEE 802.11 UP
>> for interconnection between wired and wireless networks. The
>> recommendation in Section 5.1.2 maps network control traffic, CS6 and
>> CS7, as well as unassigned DSCPs, to UP 0 when forwarding in the
>> upstream direction (wireless-to-wired). It also recommends mapping
>> CS6 and CS7 traffic to UP 7, when forwarding in the downstream
>> direction (Section 4.1).
>>
>> Perhaps as follows?
>> - Section 5.1.2 of this document ("Mapping Specified for IEEE 802.11")
>> - Section 4.1 of RFC 8325 ("Network Control Traffic")
>> -->
>>
>> GF: This works for me.
>>
>> 8) <!--[rfced] Regarding Table 5, should the header be updated
>> as follows or otherwise? The term "Aggregate Class" does not appear 
>> in RFC 8100. Should it be defined within this document?
>>
>> Original:
>> | RFC8100 | DSCP | | Agg. Class | |
>> Perhaps:
>> | Treatment Aggregate [RFC8100] | DSCP |
>>
>> GF: This works for me.
>>
>> Similarly, regarding Table 6, should the header be updated as follows 
>> or otherwise? We note that GSMA IR.34 lists the four "UMTS QoS 
>> classes" in Section 6.2.1. The term "Aggregate Class" does not appear 
>> in IR.34.
>>
>> Original:
>> | GSMA IR.34 | PHB | | Agg. Class | |
>> Perhaps:
>> | QoS Class in [GSMA-IR.34] | PHB |
>> -->
>>
>> GF: This works for me.
>>
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] To more clearly indicate the forwarding direction, 
>> may we update
>> the hyphens to "to" in the following?
>>
>> Original:
>> A provider service path may consist of sections where multiple and
>> changing layers use their own code points to determine differentiated
>> forwarding (e.g., IP - MPLS - IP - Ethernet - Wi-Fi).
>>
>> Suggested:
>> A provider service path may consist of sections where multiple and
>> changing layers use their own code points to determine differentiated
>> forwarding (e.g., IP to MPLS to IP to Ethernet to Wi-Fi).
>> -->
>>
>> GF: This seems good.
>>
>> 10) <!--[rfced] Will the use of ampersand in the title of Section 
>> 6.2.1 be clear to readers? Would it be more clear to write the 
>> meaning in prose?
>>
>> Original:
>> 6.2. Where the proposed DSCP > 0x07 (7)
>> 6.2.1. Where the proposed DSCP&0x07=0x01
>> 6.3. Where the proposed DSCP <= 0x07 (7)
>> -->
>>
>> GF: I'm unsure I want to changge.
>> GF: I do suggest we add one sentence after each subsection heading 
>> clarify this:
>>
>> 6.2. Where the proposed DSCP > 0x07 (7)
>> ADD NEW:
>> This considers a proposed DSCP with a codepoint larger than 7.
>>
>> 6.2.1. Where the proposed DSCP&0x07=0x01
>> ADD NEW:
>> This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits 
>> have a value of 1.
>>
>> 6.3. Where the proposed DSCP <= 0x07 (7)
>> ADD NEW:
>> This considers a proposed DSCP where the DSCP is less than or equal to 7.
>>
>>
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Table Headers
>>
>> a) In Tables 1, 3, and 4, there's an identical line (Tables 1 and 3, last
>> row; Table 4, top row). Should this row be in a consistent location
>> of each table (e.g., the top row)?
>>
>> Identical row:
>> + - - - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
>> | 0/CS0 | 1/LE | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
>> + - - - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
>>
>> GF: No: This seems a nice idea, but the row ordering is significant, 
>> and this corresponds
>> to the lowest set of numerical values and belongs at the bottom of 
>> tables 1,3.
>>
>> b) For Tables 2, 5, and 6, please consider whether any labels should be
>> added to the columns or rows so that it's clearer to the reader what 
>> the table contains.
>> -->
>> GF: Please include 3 in this list, it's the same format
>> For Tables 2,3,5
>>
>> We could add a title row above the bit pattern with the bit number 
>> within the DS field:
>>
>> ADD NEW:
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | ...
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>> GF: In addition, I think it would be clearer if the legend explained 
>> in each case that this was the D
>>
>> OLD:
>> Figure 2: Bleaching of the ToS Precedence
>> NEW:
>> Figure 2: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by bleaching of the ToS 
>> Precedence
>>
>> OLD:
>> Figure 3: ToS Precedence Re-marking
>> NEW:
>> Figure 3: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by ToS Precedence 
>> Re-marking
>>
>> OLD:
>> Figure 5: Observed Re-marking Behavior Resulting from Deriving from 
>> UP-to-DSCP Mapping in Some 802.11 Networks
>> NEW:
>> Figure 5: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by Re-marking Observed 
>> as a Result of UP-to-DSCP Mapping in Some 802.11 Networks
>>
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>
>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
>> inconsistently. May we update to the version on the right?
>>
>> ToS Precedence bleaching vs. ToS Precedence Bleaching
>> ToS precedence field vs. ToS Precedence field
>>
>> GF: Please do update as you suggest.
>>
>> b) We see that "Traffic Class" and "traffic class" along with the 
>> acronym "TC"
>> are used throughout the document. Would you like to expand the first 
>> instance
>> of these and then use the acronyms in the remainder of the document? 
>> Or do
>> you prefer the current usage?
>>
>> GF: Ah, good question. These are various things with the same name, 
>> and I think these are mostly correct:
>>
>> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", in section 5 is ok
>> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.1 
>> is not related to MPLS and should remain in lower case.
>> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.2 
>> does relate to MPLS.
>>
>> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.3 
>> is not related to MPLS and should remain in lower case.
>>
>>
>> GF: PLEASE DO UPDATE: The term "traffic class", in section 6.2.1 
>> could potentially be confused, and would be better as "PHB":
>> OLD:
>> demoting the traffic to the Lower Effort traffic class.
>> NEW:
>> demoting the traffic to the Lower Effort PHB.
>>
>> c) To avoid confusion with "Access Classes (AC)", may we make "Access 
>> Categories" lowercase?
>>
>> Original:
>> Then, in turn, this is mapped
>> to the four Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) Access Categories.
>> Perhaps:
>> Then, in turn, this is mapped
>> to the four Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) access categories.
>>
>> GF: Good note, please go ahead and do this.
>>
>> d) FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use. 
>> Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure 
>> correctness.
>>
>> DSCP - Differentiated Services Code Point
>> EF - Expedited Forwarding
>> EXP - updated "experimental" to "Experimental" per RFC 8126
>> IPX - IP Packet eXchange
>> LSR - updated "Label-Switched Router" to "Label Switching Router" per 
>> published RFCs
>> LU - updated "local use" to "Local Use" per RFC 8126
>> MAC - Media Access Control
>> MEF - updated "Metro Ethernet Forum" to "MEF Forum"
>> PDB - updated "Per Domain Behavior" to "Per-Domain Behavior" like 
>> "Per-Hop" in PHB
>> P-GW - updated "Packet Gateway" to "Packet Data Network Gateway"
>> UMTS - Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
>> -->
>>
>> GF: These changes are all good.
>>
>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for 
>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the 
>> content that surrounds it" 
>> (https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
>> -->
>>
>> GF: I am not aware of any content of this type.
>>
>> 14) <!-- [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.
>>
>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this 
>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>> -->
>>
>> GF: We plan to review the entire text bvefore we approve and we will 
>> review this at this next stage
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor/st/ar
>>
>> GF: We have some very late cross-area INT review comments that it was 
>> suggested we incorporate at this stage:
>>
>> 1. An updated citation for  [IEEE.802.11] is:
>>
>> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
>> Telecommunications and information exchange between
>> systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific
>> requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
>> (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
>> IEEE 802.11, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995, December
>> 2016, https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/8802-11/10034/802.11/5536/.
>>
>> 2. s/exchange point/diffserv domain boundary/ in Section 4
>> OLD:
>> and agreements between providers at an exchange point
>> NEW:
>> and agreements between providers at a diffserv domain boundary
>>
>>  3. Please remove the following sentence: This aligned with the now 
>> deprecated use of
>> CS1 as the codepoint for the lower effort service, as previously 
>> specified in [RFC4594].
>> DELETE:
>> This aligned with the now deprecated use of CS1 as the codepoint for 
>> the Lower Effort service, as previously specified in [RFC4594].
>>
>> 4. Explain "unknown" using our agreed text:
>> OLD:
>> The treatment of packets that are marked with an unknown or an 
>> unexpected DSCP at Diffserv domain boundaries is determined by the 
>> policy for a Diffserv domain
>> NEW:
>> A packet that arrives with a DSCP that is not associated with a PHB, 
>> results in an “unknown DSCP”. A node could receive a packet with an 
>> "Unexpected DSCP" due to misconfiguration, or because there is no 
>> consistent policy in place. The treatment of packets that are marked 
>> with an unknown or an unexpected DSCP at Diffserv domain boundaries 
>> is determined by the policy for a Diffserv domain.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Jul 3, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2023/07/03
>>
>> RFC Author(s):
>> --------------
>>
>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>
>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and 
>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If 
>> an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>
>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>> your approval.
>>
>> Planning your review ---------------------
>>
>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>
>> * RFC Editor questions
>>
>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that 
>> have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows:
>>
>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>
>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>
>> * Changes submitted by coauthors
>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>> coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to 
>> changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>
>> * Content
>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change 
>> once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> - contact information
>> - references
>>
>> * Copyright notices and legends
>>
>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – 
>> https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>
>> * Semantic markup
>>
>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of 
>> content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at 
>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>
>> * Formatted output
>>
>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations 
>> compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>
>>
>> Submitting changes
>> ------------------
>>
>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as 
>> all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The 
>> parties include:
>>
>> * your coauthors
>>
>> * [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>
>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF 
>> Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible 
>> ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>
>> * [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list:
>>
>> * More info:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>
>> * The archive itself:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>
>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of 
>> the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have 
>> dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>> [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and its 
>> addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>
>> An update to the provided XML file
>> — OR —
>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>
>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>
>> OLD:
>> old text
>>
>> NEW:
>> new text
>>
>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an 
>> explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>
>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of 
>> text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be 
>> found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a 
>> stream manager.
>>
>>
>> Approving for publication
>> --------------------------
>>
>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>
>>
>> Files -----
>>
>> The files are available here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-xmldiff1.html
>>
>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>> diff files of the XML.
>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.original.v2v3.xml
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.form.xml
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9435
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9435 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13)
>>
>> Title : Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated 
>> Services Codepoint (DSCP)
>> Author(s) : A. Custura, G. Fairhurst, R. Secchi
>> WG Chair(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Marten Seemann
>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>>
>> ===
>