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

["Rodney W. Grimes" <[e-mail]>]

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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                                                 [e-mail]