Re: [tsvwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-04

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 09 May 2018 05:18 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 74985127058; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 uRvmTDRdnQOF; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7278A1270FC; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id r202-v6so10364435ywg.10; Tue, 08 May 2018 22:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4RpmgjJ4UNFrkBlHmCuvLjW4q+pv3A6SuYqbMdCS4Jw=; b=FYvZHswdFpVDYjgfZbygq/FecP5c4STtfBtIX93chKNmWfp5ytXdpm5jl5eMG8HGvs z39ss/oTa6lNmoyMtvXlEcYQ6fQN88fuZMuyJ1QInGK9NDTiSLqlFOXu16146LePOKtp dlZ89beS5PnsQMhL9PQfZh1+Oq/f9iOc44H0MqmGuRDOUWfMy283VuwHjEJhPT3Nu/mz 2quRqJb+Nhe5kmR99LcaBk6jvR0plz5XDCikRZWWgXibtDJA96NXttkDjVcMrNgsNoy9 7BoWQys1vP0E6eVkYgdj730ZxC4BXcLz385eiR41J4ivWXUkRgQXf5ncEiDvgpubsXZB JpWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4RpmgjJ4UNFrkBlHmCuvLjW4q+pv3A6SuYqbMdCS4Jw=; b=lTJpOk8Xc+vN8UMu9BlCNhWAR+WelNRShS4tXeYT84WeGLxKVWBnEqv/QqlZ9APVA6 hrQQxcBZzmRKiHRu3g8mNH+noEw2w0AefWcIcR/R7fw0NZh/45Bz7lgxK/+5kYmppAKD 2rcfEYLbrH8WdDk73xMJORYf/a+lW6Kw9gnNZ1hHcsDDcaN/Lyo/fOqhQJtntPL5yu7b L7n2kOP7iN9ONaydqGXk0ou0vyu023o634pqKbfgYMC0hZEq4Bxjd8aEmWctbEwj/iVc TAYVVH4j9ds+KjgMN0L6qIBSvV9mjpOHQxE2EFoS/M2n2iSkL05/q6KJzPYTCPOpSs4s 2F+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCj16Sr6vUsW+CpeBOPOPQYDaYXq7GSvXn/c0s4G++iawczuZv+ lG+D5kUgzRyBfeEjXV+yhh9/nGlhYi6KwA0Gq4hnfA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrf83Xdnh2Suaag8nMkKje33ucTaWn7HK7v00ry3z/c8a+5bv60hTLCek1Y5e7vNPz3yTKLQxtT7h5pA6iA/2Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ed06:: with SMTP id w6-v6mr22652227ywe.467.1525843089614; Tue, 08 May 2018 22:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a25:d014:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 8 May 2018 22:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <152578801020.16205.9788449750372171578.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <152578801020.16205.9788449750372171578.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 00:18:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-c8XHDr0EvSLX4edTt6tKzMNkEFp3Z-jW5w_cpeJh3GWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Black <david.black@dell.com>
Cc: tsvwg-chairs <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000056ee6e056bbf0700"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/PQ0_oys1N8C6QPYWUokxY8v7kc4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-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: Wed, 09 May 2018 05:18:12 -0000

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:00 AM, David Black <david.black@dell.com> wrote:

David Black has requested publication of draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-04
> as Proposed Standard on behalf of the TSVWG working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry/


I have a couple of comments, but this draft is ready for Last Call. Could
you take a look at my comments, and let me know what the right thing to do
is?

Thanks!

Spencer

 There's a reference to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.9 in
the Introduction, but that text uses "Standards Action" with the reference
but without any expansion, while further down, the next occurrence of
"Standards Action" explains that this means "values are assigned by
Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs", without providing a
reference. Perhaps expanding

   These are assigned by
   Standards Action, as defined in [RFC8126].

to read

   These are assigned by
   Standards Action, as defined in [RFC8126], i.e., values are assigned
   by Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs

and dropping the expansion from the second mention would be clearer?

Independent of that question, I had to read through the text containing the
second mention a couple of times.

  Although Pool 1 has not yet been completely exhausted, this document
   changes the IANA registration policy of Pool 3 to assignment by
   Standards Action, i.e., values are assigned by Standards Track or
   Best Current Practice RFCs.  The rationale for this update is a need
   to assign codepoints for particular PHBs that are unable to use any
   of the unassigned values in Pool 1.

Would it be correct to say

  Although Pool 1 has not yet been completely exhausted, there is a need
   to assign codepoints for particular PHBs that are unable to use any
   of the unassigned values in Pool 1. This document
   changes the IANA registration policy of Pool 3 to assignment by
   Standards Action, i.e., values are assigned by Standards Track or
   Best Current Practice RFCs, allowing these codepoints to be assigned.

?