Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-02 - editorial comments

[[e-mail]]

.The top-level observation (I'll follow-up with another email if needed about
>> specific text) is that the latest revision discusses the way in which access
>> points and wireless devices can change the DSCP marking or drop traffic
>> because of the DSCP marking.
>> 
> 
> I'd like to first stress the point that the remarking and dropping recommendations of network control traffic (marked CS6/CS7) at the edge of the wired-to-wireless network (as made in Section 4.1.1) were part of the original 2015 draft, and are not new recommendations in this latest revision. 
> 
> Additionally, these recommendations are drawn from similar recommendations made in RFC 4594-Section 3.2 which:
> 
> "RECOMMENDED that packets marked CS7
>   DSCP (a codepoint that SHOULD be reserved for future use) be dropped
>   or remarked at the edge of the Diffserv domain."
> 
> Our argument is that when the wireless access point represents the edge of the network infrastructure (and thus the edge of the Diffserv domain), this recommendation should hold; 

For CS7 (and any DSCP value not implemented in the domain) I would agree that it should be remarked or dropped. For CS6, recall that I have pointed out the assumptions that WiFi is the edge of the diffusers domain and has no IP layer routing across it. I think, and have said before that I think, that is a limiting assumption.