Re: [manet] next version of pause extension

Lou, Henning,

Top posting to summarize...

I just missed the submission deadline for LIDs, but I have a version-02 
ready to go when the window reopens on the 11th.

Meanwhile, I think the direction Lou is going with the QueueIds is
pretty close to what we were discussing about LinkIds - orthogonal in
meaning, but similar in approach.

I'm with Lou on not holding up Pause while waiting for LIDs, as they
are unrelated.

However, I do worry that the Pause extension and the DiffServ CW
extension seem to do very much the same thing, in subtly different
ways:  Both announce the queues in use for the session and assign Ids
and some kind of flow marking information (+1), and both then use those
QueueIds to identify queues for operations (again +1).

However, I know various of us involved in DLEP over the years have all
known that 'flows' and 'queues' need to be addressed at some point, and
I wonder if this is the moment.  Is it time to pull the 'Queue/Flow
Identifier' text out of both extensions and consolidate it into a
single draft, which CW and Pause (and others) can then reference?  We
can then all have a good argument about packing DSCP code points into
'sub-tlvs' once for one document, and follow it up with mechanism
extensions for different use-cases of different types of 'flow'.

Thoughts?

Rick

On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 09:01 -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> Henning,
> 
> see below.
> 
> On 11/08/2017 02:23 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
> > Rick, Stan and me had also a discussion about this when talking
> > about
> > the "link ID" extension...
> 
> I followed the thread (I think) -- I was hoping we'd get some good
> time
> in Singapore to discuss this - will you (and Rick+ Stan) be there?
> 
> > 
> > I proposed the idea that we use "link IDs" to define multiple
> > "versions" of a connection to the same target MAC address. This
> > would
> > also mean we could easily add a "this needs VLAN TOS x" or "this
> > needs
> > DSCP y" flag to a neighbor, which means we don't need to introduce
> > "sub-TLVs".
> 
> I'm torn, the lid approach means a lot of added messaging to
> essentially
> provide queue index semantics - but I also like the generic concepts
> of
> LIDS (although I personally think LID length should be fixed per
> session, not per spec.)
> 
> Given that lids are so immature, I don't think we should hold up
> pause.
> Let's get it done and out there, and *if* we come up with something
> better in a year or two we can deprecate pause.
> 
> Lou
> 
> > 
> > Henning Rogge
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Rick (all),
> > > 
> > > When we last talked (ietf99, see
> > > http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-99-manet). I
> > > think we
> > > agreed that draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-01 captured
> > > your
> > > current thinking on "containers".  Are you still happy with the
> > > draft,
> > > or do you think there is some change needed?  If the latter,
> > > obviously
> > > let us know what change you'd like to see.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Lou
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > manet mailing list
> > > manet@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> 
> 