Re: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roland,

> - Update to RFCXXXX (right now draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11):
>   put in a section (similar to section 6) that describes
>   changes to that RFC. To be clear here:
>   draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 should not be updated, it should
>   proceed to RFC as is.  draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, however, would
>   add changes to that RFC, e.g.,
>    +---------------+------+---------+-------------+--------------------+
>    | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFC(LE) |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
>    |     Data      |      |         |             |                    |
>    +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   It is, however, not clear to me whether to replace the existing
>   mapping or to add it.

There's enough "running code" for CS1 that this should be an additional mapping, and should not replace the existing one.  That'll create a need for some text advising which DSCP to choose for Background traffic in the wireless -> wired direction.

We (chairs) will also ask Spencer to add an RFC Editor note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 to add text indicating that this LE PHB draft will be making changes, including adding a DSCP (specific text will be posted to list, once it's crafted ...)

Thanks, --David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roland Bless
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:04 PM
> To: tsvwg <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
> 
> Hi,
> 
> as just stated in the session, I plan to update draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
> to version 3 with at least the following changes:
> 
> - Update the DSCP recommendation to pick a DSCP from Pool 3 (XXXX01),
>   either 1 or 5 (technical feedback on that appreciated).
> 
> - Update to RFCXXXX (right now draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11):
>   put in a section (similar to section 6) that describes
>   changes to that RFC. To be clear here:
>   draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 should not be updated, it should
>   proceed to RFC as is. draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, however, would
>   add changes to that RFC, e.g.,
>    +---------------+------+---------+-------------+--------------------+
>    | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFC(LE) |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
>    |     Data      |      |         |             |                    |
>    +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   It is, however, not clear to me whether to replace the existing
>   mapping or to add it.
> - remove the LE-min, LE-strict discussion as it seems to be ok
>   recommending a LE transport (e.g., LEDBAT++) on top if one wants
>   LE-strict semantics.
> 
> Regards,
>  Roland