IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

"Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 04:50 UTC

Return-Path: <asechoud@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62789130DFF; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:50:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BG_m6A3L-6Ya; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77A2B1277C8; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 20:50:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2808; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1543812645; x=1545022245; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8IKr+41Sj3LReyRX6iUD+BWfDE8jQJCoCksOR8p6UcA=; b=LvU1JGazOxE2b8wkRwj2a2zc37pqyx91OGKtYZ58xgZiryoqXcIAfNo/ 7Ocz/4P6JKA4UiPQsY0jkq5QAOaQHWMCvg4DUE5d+ISmT6Xy0P/ATKqnc wq6FfOTWZjwujXhwCAEpVOKtxYAel2VarjoUhbjHLd/4aFD9ZQ8LN83oZ 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAADetARc/4wNJK1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgVopZoECJwqDb4gYjAmCDYkRjjcUgWYLAQElhEcCF4MdIjQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTwBAQEDASMRRRACAQgSBgICJgICAh8RFQIOAgQBDQWDIQGBaQMNCA+kBoEvhC0BE0A/gjYNghyBC4sRF4FAP4ERJx+CTIJXRwEBAYEogzwxgiYClV6KNC4JAoZ+hw6DLhiBW02ERIo6iQSEZYELiVICERSBJx84gVVwFRpLAYJBCYM0AQeCQ2qJaUExAYxTgR8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,309,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="207056146"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Dec 2018 04:50:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB34oiEo016941 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Dec 2018 04:50:44 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:50:43 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 22:50:43 -0600
From: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
Thread-Index: AQHUiR3zYfIvVYtpQkeiGnTNjLVi0aVqes6AgABBwICAAZcsAA==
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 04:50:43 +0000
Message-ID: <FEA957E8-8EB6-49AC-8C60-25BA33BC584F@cisco.com>
References: <5e6b8c2a-bbc0-4390-b8d8-358477757cf6@Spark> <CA+RyBmU=hckXjH+E8XCT2E+Z0aw7a69Y1hTreA84Ch+ewmWrkQ@mail.gmail.com> <A70F8CFC-E757-4278-B638-8602755B8B08@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A70F8CFC-E757-4278-B638-8602755B8B08@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.3.181015
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.13.76]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <ABBE8DC888FA3A42B1FBD07EA54A1374@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/5851BhXEVKexX2EbsdX04XRmHjw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 04:50:48 -0000

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your comments. 

Please see replies inline.

Regards,
Aseem.

On 12/1/18, 12:33 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Fred Baker" <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

    
    
    > On Dec 1, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Dear Authors,
    > thank you for taking on this work. I have a question rather philosophical than technical. The title of the draft suggests that the models are generic though they are based on DSCP field of the IP header. Have you considered extending models to include the Traffic Class field of MPLS Label element? And if not, then clarify that the models are for networks with IP data plane?
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Greg
    
    I would support Greg's comment above. I would add that the DSCP discussed in the draft is called the "Traffic Class" in IPv6 (cf RFC 8200), and it would be nice to add an explanatory sentence somewhere observing on the fact. On the first usage of "DSCP", in addition to the link to RFC 2474, perhaps it should be expanded to "DSCP, Traffic Class [RFC8200], or Traffic Class [correct MPLS RFC]". Or something equivalent.
    
[AC] Agreed, will add it.

    On a technical note, it seems strange to refer to a Cisco proprietary queue management structure (MDRR, cf https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/12000-series-routers/18841-mdrr-wred-18841.html) and a research paper intended for EPON networks (PWFQ, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SPIE.6022..220X), but not the diffserv architecture, or at least without explaining that the "policing policy" etc derive from diffserv.

[AC] Diffserv behavior is defined in section 4.  Based on it, policing is defined inline or as template. The priority defined for queuing is not mandatory and hence become priority entry based on whether defined or not. Similarly for min-rate, max-rate. There is no specific reference to MDRR. The queuing actions are defined as per classifier entry or as separate queuing policy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email