Re: [tsvwg] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Gorry,

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 2:39 PM BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ok for me-
>
> Deborah
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* iesg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Warren Kumari
> *Sent:* Monday, March 04, 2019 8:15 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; tsvwg-chairs <
> [e-mail]>; IESG <[e-mail]>; Bless, Roland (TM) <
> [e-mail]>; Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>;
> Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] Warren Kumari's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:05 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have had a little reflexion on the discussion and I quite agree the
> following needs pruned/rewritten:
>
> “However, non-LE traffic (e.g., BE traffic) SHOULD NOT be
> remarked to L, on a regular basis without consent or knowledge of the
> user.”
>
>      And I do agree with pruning this from the normative text:
>      “on a regular basis without consent or knowledge of the
>      user.”
>
>      However, even though the original had become a little gabled,
>      it was an attempt to capture that there *ARE* implications.
>      We spent time talking about these implications in the WG and
>      a lot of time trying to write text to avoid accidental remarking.
>
>      I am still somewhat unclear how an operator could safely just map
>      traffic to the LE   class, without a priori knowing what the flow
>      expects. Sure, an operator could setup a BA-classifier and understand
>      that application “X” wants this service.. If it does that then that
>      traffic will receive the treatment of LE traffic for the rest of the
>      path. If I understood the intention, it was to remind people that
>      this isn’t just another “lower level” in the diffserv hierarchy -
>      traffic mapped to this class needs to be resilient to starvation,
>      and expect that this will happen.
>
>      I suggest an explanation could be added after the clause to be
>      pruned to avoid this not working out well:
>
>      “Remarking traffic from another PHB results in that traffic
>      being "downgraded”. This changes the way the network treats this
>      traffic and it is important not to violate the operational
>      objectives of the original PHB.”
>
>
>
> That sounds reasonable to me.....
>
>
>
> W
>
>
>
>
>
> Gorry
>
> P.S. Roland, I also just saw a few clauses saying “In case ....”, I don’t
> know how I missed that in my review, but these read ambiguously to me: I
> could it would be better if the phrase was “In the case that”.
>
> Thanks for sending your note. I knew there was an important point that was
trying to escape from the e-mail thread.

And NOW, I think, Roland can submit an approvable update.

Spencer