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

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Wed, 08 April 2020 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
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 7AAB03A064C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Gbje_E94TZW1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A5833A064A for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 038Naadg002632; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 038NaaBV002631; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202004082336.038NaaBV002631@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-etYiZes-qRJCHUGwOaKq4KTXQQo0p-++WRy+bytT_wDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
CC: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/PVPgcs6iNEvaCWjcqisvofuDPNI>
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 23:36:45 -0000

> I didn't say this at the mike, so it won't be in the minutes, but ...
> 
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:12 AM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > TSVWG,
> >
> > Here is the (shortened) agenda for the on-line interim meetings, based
> > on the Agenda submitted for the Vancouver IETF. If you are scheduled to
> > present in Interim 1 (WG document status), please send slides for us to
> > upload to the meeting materials page. We will shortly distribute
> > information for Interim 2.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Gorry
> >
> > (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Wednesday Apr-08-2020 1000
> > 0700-0930 UTC-7 (San Francisco) = 1000-1230 UTC-4 (Boston) = 1500-1730
> > UTC+1 (London) = 1600-1830 UTC+2 (Berlin) = 2200-0030[+1] UTC+8 (Beijing
> > - not on summer time, other 4 are)
> >
> > TSWG Interim #1
> >
> 
> (deleted down to)
> 
>          6.2   Jerome Henry: QCI and Diffserv API (10 mins)
> >          draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci
> >
> 
> The other reason I hope TSVWG pushes a bit more in this space is that the
> final answer may be either "you guys should really be using diffserv" or
> "you guys are working on new 5G markers and you can't map the ones you
> already have onto diffserv now, so good luck" ... and I could live with
> either answer, if it was written down.
> 
> No snark intended.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Spencer

A strong +1, I do understand that the carriers have a far more
robust set of traffic types to deal with, but I would think
some order of alignment in the space should be attempted.

Infact given that the carriers are also carriers of internet
traffic I would of thought that some mapping was already in
place.

Regards,
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org