Re: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings

"Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry@cisco.com> Mon, 13 April 2020 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jerhenry@cisco.com>
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 7B7BA3A1A9D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=GnhwA1MP; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=f5bHqI3D
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 xfW3EDXvRLZP for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D32D3A19E8 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 11:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=20411; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1586800866; x=1588010466; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=um9Me9cPIiW6e2WqI1ARN4kGRhN/ti+lwe4yJj7wnnU=; b=GnhwA1MPUMTxVRkN1+0EmAfE30rmb8uZ6ZnKnuMmLIf8nZVv/Y4GZLSi p/nzkMfM6VnniLi4BybVVs2P6lD6cs9E/cRhCaFyZ0r3/7tmfvRdZ7YPS vbmSuP13OsGAzkXbZsEW3B1qrK5yhPFocn1nHLuvxCvp7b6vCxKn+gj+p s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Aean85xRMBzdO43G7+1fly9wKZ9psv++ubAcI9p?= =?us-ascii?q?oqja5Pea2//pPkeVbS/uhpkESXBNfA8/wRje3QvuigQmEG7Zub+FE6OJ1XH1?= =?us-ascii?q?5g640NmhA4RsuMCEn1NvnvOi43BsRPUkV013q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CiCgBmqJRe/5JdJa1mgkGBJS9QBWx?= =?us-ascii?q?YIAQLKgqEEoNGA4ppgl+JcolRhGCBLoEkA1QKAQEBDAEBIwoCBAEBhEQCF4F?= =?us-ascii?q?5JDUIDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEFBG2FVgELhXABAQEBAxIRHQEBNwEPAgEIEQM?= =?us-ascii?q?BAigDAgICHxEUCQgCBA4FIoMEAYF+TQMuAQ6jXQKBOYhidYEygn8BAQWBRkF?= =?us-ascii?q?BgkYNC4IOAwaBOIJiiVMagUE/gTgcgh8uPoIeSQIDAYFeIw0JglwygiyOR4J?= =?us-ascii?q?QhgqKRI8mSQqCQYd+iw+EQh2cJo57Vokxgj2QWgIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUwE3gVd?= =?us-ascii?q?wFWUBgj5QGA2RFoUUhUABdIEpjSIBgQ8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,378,1580774400"; d="scan'208,217";a="472036970"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 13 Apr 2020 18:01:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 03DI13Fu021598 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:01:04 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:01:03 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:01:03 -0500
Received: from NAM11-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:01:03 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JRw4Nnmyg+aiX0dsDpX4QbNW02clWXjL9DmZpk6h87OVWP4EbyO+xJPH6Ts3J8jEVyO1Qk6CnbtLNnTBliQ5FPMWF0XEOVUyTOKRzS28uh6Q0wa4OHaxO6xtt7bCKU1vU2VwG3COk7/iVJY660KrviQ24eTV30oBBDk3+gnVggj7sB5oH5RK9tlH5HWqZ7ka1YLNJ5mnrA8GCY7osigcNlQ/tLfWyjZU3PWH74kIwdl5DU+Fv+o2QXrUtfyeOavo57ctiSDM01nGMaGLFN4BQY8AtHAP4YyArWM3i30bOLbeCS8+AjH0+KJod5cQzAz8I1ZZsiyNgDs/wQf1NQWZEg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=um9Me9cPIiW6e2WqI1ARN4kGRhN/ti+lwe4yJj7wnnU=; b=fy2XOsiGMjZ2hISQk3NIcoke5PAMjvILLZuBIVzvbzcZy82mKKz4bfJX1Cl+VpxM1C0Z4ycOjwT9tTY3rr/sSSv/yE5Gshvyt6QVxkLHuQRuobBIa2oJX5hDmIexJdjXOI2BNd7uyYyW8VkF9S8HDZTgQmfUDzNwRxM0uVfTBV+x/aWWpLdNz4CFWySzmah23BMGfI+T0NC3gOf5PeTtcpTlCxe7qlVqt4fVW1m01SIo0zI2P4d/3OwE/qkcwitZr7M638TYzBPsdP6KInALQrh5jxUI+IGdDc5XEdKJS6c8x5gQH8T2tBCP8dI0kRmyINyMMpWAyzd0qC3tVPAf1A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=um9Me9cPIiW6e2WqI1ARN4kGRhN/ti+lwe4yJj7wnnU=; b=f5bHqI3DbwFrz8pnaciE68r+9EMSYnGmPp3b1ffQZhe195+jYnzXb1EmensuSQ2ABfF9kmmFsVhbYmRiLlUqa2ngXD8wlg2ls7heJ2ZOiXgEESN+UVEPFEBdirtIDM0miWGHL/we5NK3PGcG28pglpoZVVv0Neg2ScMfN4fMoqw=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3904.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:13c::16) by MN2PR11MB3903.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:136::27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2900.28; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:01:01 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3904.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9503:8dfc:ce31:ff38]) by MN2PR11MB3904.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9503:8dfc:ce31:ff38%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2900.026; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:01:01 +0000
From: "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry@cisco.com>
To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
CC: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings
Thread-Index: AQHWC+K1o/oZU/J66kCgVZI9bM3ZjKhvap8AgAB6sQCAABWmgIAAa28AgABY6gCABmDYgA==
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:01:01 +0000
Message-ID: <20B80AC5-8E72-45D4-B2AF-3193C116FEAF@cisco.com>
References: <CAKKJt-etYiZes-qRJCHUGwOaKq4KTXQQo0p-++WRy+bytT_wDQ@mail.gmail.com> <202004082336.038NaaBV002631@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <CAKKJt-eoE9511eSR1mjDh2gyaacSnON5bBEPJGXOG1umLTdc1w@mail.gmail.com> <FRAPR01MB0130D61B392472FF117C6AFC9CC10@FRAPR01MB0130.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <CAKKJt-d_L78EkvEeSwnM1SJnL0BmrnexVqAp1NY7hnVtKKuSHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-d_L78EkvEeSwnM1SJnL0BmrnexVqAp1NY7hnVtKKuSHw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.35.20030802
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jerhenry@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.81]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6f84c8f1-a6fc-4de3-341d-08d7dfd4a0ab
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3903:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3903669CA8966A83B124087CD5DD0@MN2PR11MB3903.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 037291602B
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB3904.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(376002)(6506007)(53546011)(26005)(2906002)(71200400001)(6486002)(6512007)(6916009)(4326008)(5660300002)(33656002)(54906003)(316002)(478600001)(64756008)(66556008)(966005)(8936002)(66446008)(2616005)(81156014)(66476007)(86362001)(36756003)(186003)(8676002)(66946007)(76116006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: h4UQWz+BbdxT1Jv3+dc0GCgdkQcoFf0+ojDJt7njuMKlBZE7k1vpo1h8y7E5A7MH67MaGyUQRZ9SgKbj0TBrYqyO0gfFYecv+dO8x+HFajUE0GPCCT12qMm9mUbpJWKTE+s+xuH6seSgR/SZTtO+wA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_20B80AC58E7245D4B2AF3193C116FEAFciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6f84c8f1-a6fc-4de3-341d-08d7dfd4a0ab
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Apr 2020 18:01:01.7120 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: q+QVTT96Y8gSoGDyUPLZR7qZuKNqh3xk/5NSnKK1jKVR9XVBIJnrB38Dz/C3iBOTBWhfhTmunsjco8GvF+OTFg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3903
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.12, xch-aln-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/PMXVyUdmDAKF8Xt7yUKvIXqgnwQ>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:01:13 -0000

Thank you Ruediger,

This is very useful.
It seems to me that, since release 8, 3GPP has continuously worked at refining the definitions of traffic types, and at defining new types.  Today, I would tend to say that they have explored traffic types that the DIffserv world has not fully explored yet.
Offering a map to Diffserv may be useful in that regard. A longer term effort might also be to more deeply explore the world of automation and virtual reality, to define more precisely the traffic categories that Diffserv would expect there. This could be a second wave of efforts.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Best

Jerome

From: tsvwg <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2020 at 8:37 AM
To: "Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
Cc: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings

Hi, Ruediger,

On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:18 AM <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de<mailto:Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>> wrote:

Hi Spencer,



I tried to get in contact with 3GPP when LTE and the QCI were introduced.
Thanks for sharing your experience with this - it's WAY deeper than mine!

  *   QCIs are no markings.. They are assigned to their connections  from policy node to terminal..
(I questioned "markings" when I wrote it - thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say)

  *
  *   There’s been a 9 standard QCI set which was mapped in no easy to aggregate way to their DiffServ scheme (GSMA IR.34). I proposed changes.
  *   The standard QCIs are not binding. There’s also no binding subset or minimum subset to implement.
  *   The mapping of standard QCIs to applications is not binding.
  *   There are many more private QCIs, which saw deployment at that time..
  *   LTE and likely 5G schedulers are proprietary.

 I stopped working on that.

 The best idea that I’ve heard was to introduce a DiffServ scheduler at the LTE(5G) sender and run the wireless section without these QCIs on a best effort base for all mobile terminals (the have a terminus for that mode of operating the wireless section). That would require a rather strong push from the mobile operators.
I know that you and David Black co-edited https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8100/, which was aimed at DiffServ for operator interconnection, Do you think something like RFC 8100 would be helpful?

(and I agree with your point about mobile operators needing to encounter enough pain to be receptive to that kind of change)

 I didn’t follow their work on 5G QoS.
Completely understandable :-)

And thanks again for this note.

Best,

Spencer