Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-12 - ends Feb 13

["Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

>>  I see two reasonable options:
>>  - Use CS0 (000000) [same as DF] and indicate that this may change in 
>>the future.
>>  - Use CS1 (001000) with all the warnings and caveats that have been 
>>discussed.
>>   There's more at the end of Section 3 in RFC 7657 which is already 
>>cited
>>   in the discussion after table 1, although  an additional noted
>>   that this material is at the end of Section 3 could be useful.
>>
>>  Prior to Brian's comments, the draft was headed for the latter.
>
>If the rough consensus is to recommend 001000 that's OK. But I really 
>think
>we are propagating confusion by naming it CS1, because that is the name
>of a different behaviour. It's LE (001000).

Let me preface my reply by saying that I don't want to hold up the 
document by asking...

James Polk was actively working on RFC 4954bis, restructuring some of 
the code points and groups, etc.  I know he spent a lot of hours 
thinking about what he wanted, but I don't know how far he got in 
writing it down.  He did publish a few drafts, but I suspect he had 
other changes that never made it into the draft.  The latest draft 
published was 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update-03.

In August 2015, Fred Baker sent a note to the list about revising 4594.  
There seemed to be general agreement that it was starting to show signs 
of aging AND that it would be a lot of work.  I don't know what the 
thoughts were around revising it, whether it's entirely different or 
along the lines of what James had started.

But, perhaps this is just one more reason why those who are experts in 
this area should perhaps spend some cycles to revise that text?  
Personally, I think there would be some benefit in having an updated 
spec that is standards track.

Paul