Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 20 April 2018 06:28 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B4012D7E4 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLhqHl--KUdx for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62CE3129C6B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 613DFB0; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:28:04 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1524205684; bh=oSs/KeKxKqVW+tEY+g+4UvtByRne969wFQ8QzQqzYN8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=C9wR6BsNs9HRU3BART7tbGx6oFWPuDv/ZHILC0XxSALPbethWL9qTnG3p0TUIBDVY VD+H0/aq8ST4/fddnlFKndY0Z+/IfoMV+d6n+N7vk8wqWNSUf3POk5wcUFMIqbsrho 2qC9fnqFPAd4qTZBNNx1Z/hoJ+TKHv+5bzbIEeDQ=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCABAF; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:28:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:28:04 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <fbc0e011-6e37-c0ee-c90e-191349f75cac@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200823330.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <20180406160344.xwfqgzhzfto56jhq@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <LEJPR01MB1033F43509F08701B2B5EA1D9CBF0@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <82d646b7-d475-64d6-9f0b-f75e3daeeaca@gmail.com> <20180410090033.xkwsyfbfardg4pwx@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <ddac784e-3a88-c82d-0ed5-3816bffa2d72@gmail.com> <20180412023305.6nwyoway2m2exy2c@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <LEJPR01MB10334C794BDA7E125917576E9CBC0@LEJPR01MB1033.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804190826550.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <adf6493b-45fd-9d0c-70f5-5d343cad22dd@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200635060.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <fbc0e011-6e37-c0ee-c90e-191349f75cac@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/HQ-GoO8rGRhzuipI8bEqLIUGVds>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] residential broadband BCP PHB and CP treatment Re: CC/bleaching thoughts for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 06:28:10 -0000

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Mikael,
>
>> If CP == 1 goto queueLE;
>
> Sure, if IANA assigns the code point that the draft requests.

Of course.

>> I would
>> like whatever we come up with to be RFC8325 compatible and at least not
>> conflicting with it.
>
> If you mean 8325 *as updated by draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb* we are fine.
> But it will be very important to get that update into everybody's head.

Can you please enlighten me why you think it's ok to put CS1 into the same 
queue as LE (background, as per 8325), but it's not ok to remap CP 
CS1->LE?

Because my proposal for the second scenario in my earlier email would 
otherwise have been (adding remap of CS1 -> LE):

If CP == 1 then pass; # allow LE
If CP == 8 then set CP = 1; # remap CS1 to LE
If CP => 2 then set CP = 0; # set 2-63 to 0

I think this is an important distinction and we need to decide how to 
handle this case. Is CS1 more likely to be equivalent to BE or LE? Because 
in this scenario, it's going into one of these two. What's the least harm?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se