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

Hi Greg,

Please find replies inline.

Regards,
Aseem

From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, December 3, 2018 at 5:33 PM
To: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com>
Cc: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

Hi Aseem,
much appreciate your expedient response. I still wonder if your intention to build a generic model of QoS, then why it uses specific only to IPv4 DSCP value? For example, in the last paragraph of the Introduction section, you've stated:
   The traffic streams are differentiated
   based on DiffServ Code Points (DSCP) carried in the IP header of each
   packet.
That is true but only for the network with IP data plane, IPv4 to be more precise, as pointed Fred. Should the generic QoS model be less specific about the data plane technology

[AC] I think the statement is in the context of extension to previous statement   “The DiffServ model is based on DiffServ architecture, and various references have been made to

   available standard architecture documents.” .  I think it is fine to be part of Section 1 rather than moving to Section 4 for Diffserv model design.

And I got a more technical question to authors:
Why use inet:ipv4-address and inet:ipv6-address explicitly rather than implicitly by using inet:ip-address?

[AC] This was done to define policy-types ipv4 and ipv6 and inet:ip-address was accordingly split into inet:ipv4-address and inet:ipv6-address.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 8:42 PM Aseem Choudhary (asechoud) <asechoud@cisco.com<mailto:asechoud@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Thanks for your question.

This draft defines the QoS base modules of Policy, Classiier, Action, Target. QoS base module has been augmented with Diffserv module.
This is described in Section 1.
For MPLS, similar modules will be augmented as part of separate draft. This has not been specifically mentioned but can be added.

Regards,
Aseem

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com<mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>>
Date: Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 8:38 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

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

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:31 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear RTGWG,

The authors have requested RTGWG to adopt draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model as the working group document.
The draft has received support during IETF101 meeting, authors have addressed all the comments received.

Please indicate support or no-support by December 15, 2018.

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this
email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not
advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each
author and each individual that has contributed to the document..

Cheers,
Jeff & Chris
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg