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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Mon, 16 April 2018 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19D212704A for <>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OmADyKSi5UxS for <>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFE34124B0A for <>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 14:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=7262; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1523913293; x=1525122893; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=Y+WeNJCaXFNTo6UvEDP0iWo2nvThrTy1QaGU3KLQsfg=; b=UVqcoJrQNsKRex9EKVEq2R2Ydi9Vp4jpyiyJakFDTnJJTEL+6H4EThrC JdzFg1+zPBW2yO5P1DeARENyobxZhk1gdj7pcwGTHlQ/uSGDnwVjy1AsF Cj0AMB9aY/x/hcLR+3wkQr1xjKggZRSTobJezy2CEfOecNRu2d5Vm4RCg g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,460,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="100038026"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2018 21:14:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w3GLEqdu015513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:14:52 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:14:50 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:14:50 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?
Thread-Index: AdPLiA0Fz07Ou+3RS7mSGBKIu+TPnQKPvgzA
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d4c868ca105c46f0ade9ca9414b3925cXCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:14:56 -0000

Alex and Martin expressed a preference for DSCP as its own separate feature.  And so that is the way it is reflected in the just posted v12 version of:

Unless anyone has a strong issue here, let's close Question 3.


From: Netconf <> On Behalf Of Eric Voit (evoit)
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:13 PM
Subject: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 3: DSCP as its own feature?

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?