Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-04.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

David, Brian,

terminology will be changed to "DSCP Aggregation Prefix" in the next version.

Thanks and regards,

Ruediger

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:17 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-04.txt

Changing Precedence to Aggregation makes sense to me.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:57 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-geib-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-04.txt
>
> Hi Rüdiger,
>
> >    DSCP Precedence Prefix  The bits 0-2 of the DSCP (marked "x" in this
> >            generic DSCP field: xxxddd) are called the DSCP Precedence
> >            Prefix [RFC2474] in the following.  By ignoring the value of
> >            bits 3-6 ( d stands for don' care), a simple aggregation of
> >            PHBs differed by DSCP is possible in IP and MPLS backbones,
> >            but also if Ethernet transport is applied.
>
> Thankyou for providing explicit terminology for this. I am still worried
> that by reviving the word "precedence" we would seriously damage outsiders'
> understanding of differentiated services. The specific reason we got rid
> of "precedence" and the notion of simple priority (except for implementing
> the legacy code points) was to underline that precedence doesn't provide
> quality of service; if anything, it provides quality of disservice.
>
> Couldn't you call those three bits "DSCP Aggregation Prefix"? Then they
> would refer to 8 traffic classes, and only in a very primitive
> implementation would they be mapped to priority levels.
>
>     Brian
>