[tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with COMMENT)
Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> Thu, 21 February 2019 01:29 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh@kaloom.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3565F126F72; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:29:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb@ietf.org, David Black <david.black@dell.com>, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, david.black@dell.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <155071254716.20223.14836859439743098437.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:29:07 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/3xREFZy3K-8MbF-WpeowP_QZxmQ>
Subject: [tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:29:07 -0000
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: 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-le-phb/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I was not sure how this behavior in Section 8 is expected to be deployed and used. " A DS domain that still uses DSCP CS1 for marking LE traffic (including Low Priority-Data as defined in [RFC4594] or the old definition in [RFC3662]) SHOULD remark traffic to the LE DSCP '000001' at the egress to the next DS domain." Is the expectation that even on a domain that has not been updated to use the new DSCP there will be some node at the edge that will have been updated? If so, it might be good to explicitly note this. If not, I cannot see how a legacy node will follow this recommendation.
- [tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-i… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on dra… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [tsvwg] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on dra… Suresh Krishnan