RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: vrijdag 7 maart 2003 17:45
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs
> 
> Bert,
> 
> When you say "bring their stuff under the IETF umbrella", are you saying
> that the original MIB in question was developed outside of IETF and is
> being brought in, or are you talking about the link technology itself? 
> 
As far as I understand it, several (if not all) of the MIB modules 
(quite a few) have been developed in cablelabs context, and in fact
have been implemented at a large scale.

> If the latter, then I think the older IEEE802/IETF cooperation model on
> MIBs works OK - there you had an IETF WG (bridge, maumib, ifmib etc.)
> defining SMI MIBs under IETF root OID and having WG contributors make
> sure that adequate coordination happened; a newer model where IEEE802
> has defined some of its own SMI MIBs has also been working OK (e.g. Link
> Aggregation MIB from IEEE802, defined under IEEE802's own root OID). 
> 
> For the former case, what I don't think works is to have a MIB defined
> outside of IETF and then brought to the IETF for some reason. What would
> be the reason to do that? for IETF endorsement, for having IETF fixing
> things that are broken, just to use the IETF root OID? I don't know the
> specific reasons in this case for how this work got here. But it's
> obvious to me that, if you bring existing work to IETF for
> standardisation, be it the work of another standards' group, an industry
> group or individual contributions, *you give up change control* and you
> do not get any guarantees of backwards-compatibility: naturally you
> don't expect gratuitous non-compatibility with earlier work - the WG
> needs a valid reason to change something and one such reason would be
> alignment with other IETF MIBs.
> 
I think that is all understood. 
But I will leave it to Rich and JeanFrancois to answer the exact motives
for coming to IETF. 
From my point of view, we will not just accept everything and rubber stamp.
But I also understand that we have to be practical and that we do not just
want to make them start from scratch just for the fun of it.

By the way, quite a bit of the discussion about the Dscp, DscpOrAny,
VlanID and VlanIDOrAny is also an issue for MIB modules from the past
from IETF WGs.

> [Note that, for this particular example of filter/pattern-matching on IP
> packets with DSCPs, I'd originally proposed a separate generic MIB
> module (included a "sixTupleClassifier" table) for the reason of making
> it clear that this was general purpose and should be used by other MIBs,
> including the Diffserv MIB. However, in the end, it was decided to merge
> it into the main Diffserv MIB module (it became the
> "diffServMultiFieldClfrTable" in RFC3289 - maybe it is less visible
> there but maybe ADs can do something to raise awareness of its presence
> amongst other WGs].
> 
That is why I DID ask the question to IPCDN WG, did you guys look at the
other filter tables that we already have in the IETF.

Bert
> 
> Andrew Smith
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:57 AM
> To: Andrew Smith; Bert Wijnen
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> Sure.... and what I am doing here is not the ideal solution,
> but clearly I am trying to get various solutions aligned
> as much as possible (you have seen my issues raised
> for common definitions for Dscp, DscpOrAny, FlowLabel,
> FlowLabelOrAny, VlanId, VlanIdOrAny ... etc etc.
> 
> In the case of DOCSIS, the original stuff got developed
> outside IETF. They now try to bring their stuff under the
> IETF umbrella. We could tell them to drop/ditch all their own
> stuff and start from scratch... which I suspect will not work,
> or we can try to get them aligned as much as possible without
> making them start from scratch.
> 
> I think I am on the latter path...
> Are you suggesting we (IETF) should be on the former path?
> 
> Just trying to understand what you are urging us to do.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Smith [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: woensdag 5 maart 2003 21:42
> > To: Bert Wijnen
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs
> > 
> > 
> > I've not been following the DOCSIS MIB work closely and 
> don't know the
> > context in which this MIB was developed. That said, 
> shouldn't IETF be
> > promoting the use of generic, already-standards-track 
> > solutions, instead
> > of trying to police each new reincarnation of the same 
> thing? It would
> > have been nice if, given that this MIB is a work item of an 
> > IETF WG, the
> > IESG had put in some provision in the WG charter about re-use of
> > existing IETF work where appropriate, rather than reinventing 
> > the wheel
> > (which this looks like - see my first sentence above 
> though). Granted,
> > there is a choice of almost-equivalent wheels for packet
> > matching/filtering in the IETF standards-track repertoire but 
> > that's not
> > an argument for creating yet another one.
> > 
> > This is one aspect of the general IETF process issue of how 
> to ensure
> > that appropriate "subject matter experts" are available to a WG that
> > needs them, even when that subject matter's own WG is no longer
> > existent: the more generic the solutions that IESG steers us to, the
> > less this maintenance problem will be.
> > 
> > Reuse of already-defined MIB ojects/tables is also one of the issues
> > that an SMIng should try to make easier (and people have been 
> > looking at
> > doing this, I believe).
> > 
> > Andrew Smith
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of John Schnizlein
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:29 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Diffserv] Dscp and DscpOrAny TCs
> > 
> > 
> > Good catch, Bert.
> > The idea of a mask for the DSCP was killed some time ago in Policy
> > Framework based on its incompatibility with the following explicit
> > prohibition in the definition of the Differentiated Services Field:
> > 
> > RFC 2474 Section 3, page 7
> >    Implementors should note that the DSCP field is six bits 
> wide.  DS-
> >    compliant nodes MUST select PHBs by matching against the 
> > entire 6-bit
> >    DSCP field, e.g., by treating the value of the field as a 
> > table index
> >    which is used to select a particular packet handling 
> > mechanism which
> >    has been implemented in that device.  The value of the CU 
> > field MUST
> >    be ignored by PHB selection.  The DSCP field is defined as an
> >    unstructured field to facilitate the definition of future per-hop
> >    behaviors.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > At 11:36 AM 3/5/2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > >Do Diffservers think that the following is wise and makes sense?
> > >
> > >   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpValue OBJECT-TYPE
> > >       SYNTAX      Dscp
> > >       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
> > >       STATUS      current
> > >       DESCRIPTION
> > >           "The Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) value to
> > match
> > >            in the IP packet."
> > >       DEFVAL { 0 }
> > >       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 9 }
> > >
> > >   docsSubMgtPktFilterDscpMask OBJECT-TYPE
> > >       SYNTAX      Dscp
> > >       MAX-ACCESS  read-create
> > >       STATUS      current
> > >       DESCRIPTION
> > >           "The mask to apply against the DSCP value to be 
> matched in
> > >       the IP packet.  The default for both these objects taken
> > together
> > >       matches all DSCP values. A packet matches this filter if the
> > >       following is true:
> > >           AND (FilterDscpValue, FilterDscpMask) ==
> > >           AND (Packet DSCP Value, FilterDscpMask)."
> > >       DEFVAL { 0 }
> > >       ::= { docsSubMgtPktFilterEntry 10 }
> > >
> > >It is defined in draft-ietf-ipcdn-subscriber-mib-10.txt 
> and I'd like
> > >to hear comments from Diffserv experts.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Bert 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > diffserv mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
> > Archive:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/curre
> nt/maillis
> t.html
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html