IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 03 April 2018 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912D912D964 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xhcgai_2dasj for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A3CE12D86F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104342403D2; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1522786803; bh=n6O3zF1o4510rbsyAJhnu1LE82k94MZljmLUbHajBH0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SWG66zRrH1gKqxzaGEJa8VJ4u/JEiN9XSPUD/7p4CVCUjNPJzDNu9PHAVvQrsE8H+ VOZ5EbD94OXUbCsu3Ksmc7D94l3NCNe5tqhaeMp6SL8CJCejBCQoL8IbYXkyu4ooDl /84O9tEmPxTyytp6DbaRLfCcpQlZN/lU5/cghJ5I=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B8D0480207; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <e84a00d0a68f4cf383cce7a5acbcf736@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <e0538564-c9a8-cd5c-ffc2-358a25ee578c@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 16:20:01 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e84a00d0a68f4cf383cce7a5acbcf736@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lBQgfZuEambArOLDPPQz4o3LDF0>
Subject: Re: [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 20:20:06 -0000

DSCP and Priority are two different (related but distinct concepts).
The field should be named according to what you want to manipulate.  The 
current text seems to have a meaning closer to DSCP than to Priority.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/3/18 4:12 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> 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:
> 
> https://youtu.be/KJtg-J-6CZM?t=34m2s
> 
> https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-101-netconf?useMonospaceFont=true 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email