Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13> for your review (round 2)
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 13 July 2023 22:13 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB7AC151066; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k-RqldV1QKgm; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8699C151062; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-79414715edeso326890241.0; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1689286424; x=1691878424; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=J/mP1IWY4S9MVbmTe7thz4R3cuEn5X9KTtOepYYwxlQ=; b=d5xJ9vY8IO+40sqVR19tiKuwVN/2tGg/F/I2SYeHZkggmLxYJGfNQz7ssF3PwwbxQL fbPF25gTr7ZX0zKvk26AZiY+7KJbz93E/HreDPDacthaFEk+MtJhYVzwnKLPMyXd+D0L bEZz1p1/ahf146YEx+jrZ/4d5x9byXexVXrYMB4ntvAFZbCfmM0MUGV/uNLVJIjsZdBC 8n0N9B98QS+GSwJhroJiOOHYhHtbMBai0+aU7CfsFQRSgD5DE/wguGm5MZrUAYlOtzJI mc+TCf637p32sQ7UFY9iOJzhBKeHK5TIkb7fc8mw7c/4UfR8R3ZcqBOZtFRZDN/m/dw8 8tBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689286424; x=1691878424; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=J/mP1IWY4S9MVbmTe7thz4R3cuEn5X9KTtOepYYwxlQ=; b=Q7IE5G3DoVbSO1h8fFLbluyFPeEg1v5X7Q7jt1kT8jKp7y6XiLVhAWS1M9iZ0ONE4o CvFpHkEFUnfP30TG6MoH+xARYWg+lm+EgAEgH0FdgTGbOaU8QnvQVvRwywP92+IP4cjd tG5+fzqPNWcQ8PoqfymX2px2g7eSy/pyre8OwuneswLQ+W1qznVDCvvwhBL6zp0dBDI6 VrRIYlHiHk7h0IA+thWBsa3PVj00FrG7PWxM29othivRdNCsWvag+vAcvIWozI1Ssi9M rqoGP3WvNu0m7Lo2lp4dsuCzcSOG4l1JGWorMxCfpn/AnPi5KLwjOMOS42Lq+WHQu+sj PV+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLa36YZF8FV6pPJYVnp8gEXWOFmM1igr8+RO6+b0KAU/MsYJFUYy MhMCW+HNXKnVRlbwiyWHN1S7w5v0jpn2eiwwjDI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlG8XlwKIAd68RxTkHnyEiA7ZOIxMKUu1+3gUddwgQN9U2w/ujQw0sLXt+eJXOym+BqeGhmSpbJ8dSoie5AJIAA=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ec41:0:b0:443:7eba:e22c with SMTP id z1-20020a67ec41000000b004437ebae22cmr1259821vso.8.1689286424167; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1fae0d26-2e9b-3ec7-d779-c52c895ed039@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <bed0297b-2c91-c58e-4f0b-eef4d28bafc4@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <09D2C1F5-BDB9-4543-B0B0-730EC5DACD50@amsl.com> <20b6e7d6-da48-0c01-229c-d472ea67dbf1@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CAM4esxQtGtca9e+jYfoMjRvcxKBxf2XS58yFk_zyO4FdY9Ex3g@mail.gmail.com> <319902AA-7AA3-482D-B349-E93009A26F03@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <319902AA-7AA3-482D-B349-E93009A26F03@amsl.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:13:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxRGxLzEP9MxUFsVEP8N4naY99U7pQdxXGp17TaENx=inA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com>
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg-ads@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, david.black@dell.com, "ana C. Custura" <ana@netstat.org.uk>, "Secchi, Raffaello" <r.secchi@abdn.ac.uk>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003c8d34060065a5da"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/AmnFdL-CdaRpvdClFM45sI3CVxU>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13> for your review (round 2)
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 22:13:52 -0000
I approve. On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:08 PM Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com> wrote: > Martin, > > This is a reminder to 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].") > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > On Jul 6, 2023, at 4:35 PM, Alice Russo <arusso@amsl.com> 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: #11, we updated the figure titles as requested, but the question was > actually about tables. > 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. > > > 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. > > 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 > > On Jul 4, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> 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> > <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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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> > <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 > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 > > === > > >
- [auth48] Fwd: Fwd: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-… Gorry Fairhurst
- [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-i… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Ana C. Custura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Alice Russo
- Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <dra… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Gorry Fairhurst
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Ana C. Custura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Secchi, Raffaello
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-t… Alice Russo