[Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 03 April 2018 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9440B12D86E for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CzURI3NOreML for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 141EB12D86C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4890; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1522786372; x=1523995972; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=qNSgXva0Qi3LMh5ROHWfjOIIXHgaBR3ppJaX4/HY2zg=; b=ZUISbm1IoG2aCnh5WlyYhnpHM8jGy0CUH3ALW5Huw+7RjYGM+in8Z3d8 51JbIdD40azbrUOp6s3Iv/jE3uUjHOmCN1mWaOs9Z3d9Zj5q5emwv5oTC QsCN9GLEO3I9+2SR9rgyouFZ2sT7yYFEYwQ98A1ZTheU6pwYvBhledmJW E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.48,402,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="93110632"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Apr 2018 20:12:51 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com []) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w33KCpGQ024542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:12:51 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:12:47 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:12:50 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?
Thread-Index: AdPLiA0Fz07Ou+3RS7mSGBKIu+TPnQ==
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 20:12:50 +0000
Message-ID: <e84a00d0a68f4cf383cce7a5acbcf736@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e84a00d0a68f4cf383cce7a5acbcf736XCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/MJTM1AaG6ithLzvQ_Ozj46J9fPY>
Subject: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 20:12:58 -0000

In London, we agreed to get feedback on the following question from the list:

In draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications, should 'dscp' be its own optional feature?  Or should it be mandatory to implement?

For more on the discussion (and to view the slide) see:

I have no strong preference, but would default to mandatory-to-implement as we already have many optional features, and this is fairly simple.  Thoughts?

On a related discussion, I would like to propose renaming 'dscp' to 'priority'.   The reason is that I have received feedback that the object name 'dscp' will never make it through the IESG, as DSCP is a well-known object in the IP header.  And even though everyone in implementation will map to DSCP, applications are actually requesting a network priority rather than a DSCP.   So any objections to me making the change?