Re: [tsvwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi David,

On 01/12/16 15:12, Black, David wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for the review and interest in this draft.
> 
> Diffserv Intercon could become a standard, although I'd really like to see broader operator interest before going there.
> 
> On the "bad operational practice" point - the evidence is the widespread operator deployment of "bleaching"
> DSCPs to zero at network interconnects.  We could cite RFC 7657, which contains this text in Section 3.2
> on that point:
> 
>    So, for two arbitrary network endpoints, there can be no assurance
>    that the DSCP set at the source endpoint will be preserved and
>    presented at the destination endpoint.  Rather, it is quite likely
>    that the DSCP will be set to zero (e.g., at the boundary of a network
>    operator that distrusts or does not use the DSCP field) or to a value
>    deemed suitable by an ingress classifier for whatever network 5-tuple
>    it carries.
> 
> Would that help?

Not really, but not because it's a bad thing to add:-)

The thing I don't get is whether or not the claim in
the document is something that has IETF consensus or
not. That's because I'm ignorant about that topic, so
I'm just as happy to believe you when you tell me that
it's fine, without text changes.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 8:59 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Gorry Fairhurst; tsvwg-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12:
>> (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> - I'm puzzled by this being informational, it sure seems
>> like something that could/should be a standard. (I'm not
>> objecting, just puzzled.)
>>
>> - Section 2: For an IETF consensus document wouldn't it be
>> good to have some references for claims like "has proven to
>> be a poor operational practice"? Is that actually a
>> statement where we're confident of IETF consensus? (I have
>> no clue, I'm just checking based on the language and the
>> Informational RFC status.)
>>
>