IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 01 December 2018 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.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 E81F4130E5A; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 12:33:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 jST1-2ldNPV4; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 12:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03DCB130E55; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 12:33:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id z28so7587782edi.8; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:33:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=pgn+WuS3KDYeRE/+mQ8P48J1AC3u2ftRErCveWexM2Q=; b=OvdJslKmsoRpY15+YuliP9zCKrN/nZEZtvxGPaYVr08UD7CAsGFzYntSFYynmlbZN9 2gPnlcD4AspxPxhXYaHxPvRkTpgnDc+mkuJzyQ6kO+1ZDk43F6vz+cDd+xtre5ig98k8 XIB22QvHEbMD/176ADZaBLSn5yslbABWfSXOd45wcCsnhCK5RVnVH0oMXcK+AkS8Hf8f fNldwlcyozKidSbKb6fBdWZugoBUX+kRNBoCopGkRILIXwDQvMOPx8smzZIxTGBtCMBM 1shBcg5zmW+rbXK8LJLKeYNi+7Hgnw2Maz016ePSVgdh3DFWMq27rHQK9+6tHtTa4A8R bBFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=pgn+WuS3KDYeRE/+mQ8P48J1AC3u2ftRErCveWexM2Q=; b=iSm1J82mK3SEoajiH2tEDToU1E7miF+N/pci5KqlwYjW5eajSyeuN44+o4UQZ29BFn EbY4XGLRgqWRMR5I6qrkNjsxtSdzM2pQm8cmApUv9xpRWyJ+4gQoIh3IuyZq8NQsw8/f vqJQ4OzXVEO+kB7OK9YOOo+QnevPQ8xefH/59hpUCO7hIbIBV7xSKDXZW2Hnc/BTdIO5 MYt26fTw4rjZ91AegJJ6LWcAraX6OlfJ84K8goUDfgxPYeZuTyBT5ypSf99P7SUGgUdr 2ORtttp75fO5uisR4qi4IYNeX+1tYOCQ1CX3GMkKKVdYl7OBFrwzp9wTbQbNOG2iije4 DvKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaSNkdgtgJzcI1294ba0exB7JAzvQQ4I5Rk1gQOtN1CVcG3x/KY /oAJhtz0nxuvp1ZU4Q/j8+4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/UCzOO4nZaJFvmfpMmXhB2fo5VBIz2xzVYa+6pT0jNdcVxj2UXydqQBX/goxdavzFJmiaEdXQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:849:: with SMTP id f9-v6mr8467378ejd.49.1543696408443; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5600:1546::1042? ([2600:8802:5600:1546::1042]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j21-v6sm1416527ejz.51.2018.12.01.12.33.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:33:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A70F8CFC-E757-4278-B638-8602755B8B08@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EC078E7C-7C63-4E86-A22A-4190F0564DE8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:33:23 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU=hckXjH+E8XCT2E+Z0aw7a69Y1hTreA84Ch+ewmWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <5e6b8c2a-bbc0-4390-b8d8-358477757cf6@Spark> <CA+RyBmU=hckXjH+E8XCT2E+Z0aw7a69Y1hTreA84Ch+ewmWrkQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/klnInkWniCHeW7cbBgc0y1sjfQw>
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 20:33:32 -0000


> 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.

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email