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

[[e-mail]]

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)
-->


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].


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]. 
-->


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]. 
-->


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]. 
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Regarding Table 2 references:

a) Neither "Best Effort" nor "CS0" is mentioned in RFC 2474. How 
should the second row be updated?

b) "Voice Admit" nor "VA" appears in RFC 5865. How should it
be updated? Perhaps it refers to Call Admission Control?

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] |
                 +  - + - - - - - - - -  - - + - - - - - + 
-->


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...
-->


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")
-->


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   |


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  |
-->


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).
-->


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)
-->


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 |
   + - - - + - -  + - + - + - + - + - + - +

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.
-->


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

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?

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. 

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
-->


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).
-->


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.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/ar


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