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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Black, David wrote:

> IMHO, it's very important to distinguish this endpoint-marking use case 
> from the network interconnect use case.  For an example of endpoint 
> marking guidance, see (IESG-approved, but not yet published as an RFC) 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos/).  For a 
> network interconnect example, see RFC 8100.

For me 8100 is not applicable. 8100 talks about interconnects set up and 
agreed on remapping, PHBs etc. What I am trying to create is "Internet 
default", which is the exact opposite. My document would be about what 
happens when there is no agreement and no prior knowledge, neither between 
end-customer and ISP, or between ISPs.

However, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos is highly applicable, as this speaks 
of what applications should do by default, and thus I want to try to make 
a proposal creating recommended Internet default (last-hop) PHBs that take 
this into account, but still also takes into account that anyone can 
source traffic into this so it shouldn't have strict priority for EF for 
example.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]