Re: [tsvwg] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John.

All these changes are now in the editor's copy.

The term "Re-marking" will be used throughout, this was a mistake from 
an over-zealous spell checker, and the community uses "Re-mark" for the 
reasons you say.

Best wishes,
Gorry

On 02/03/2023 02:56, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-12
> CC @jgscudder
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> Thanks for this interesting document, I enjoyed reading it. I have a number of
> comments that I hope will be helpful; I'm somewhat concerned they may come off
> as nitpicking but in some of the cases I really did find that (for example)
> lack of a comma seriously impeded my ability to understand the material.
>
> ### Section 1, Expand "BA"
>
> Please expand "BA" on first use, presumably you'd do this by putting "(BA)"
> next to your first and only use of "Behavior Aggregates".
>
> ### Section 2, The term 'remarking'
>
> You might mention in your Terminology section that you use the term "remarking"
> in a nonstandard (with respect to the normal rules of English orthography) way,
> pronounced and construed as "re-marking". Then again, maybe the entire document
> set around DSCP already has this quirk so the ship has sailed? Your call, but
> you do say in Section 6 that your intended audience is the entire IETF and
> IESG, so it might be worth erring on the side of generosity here.
>
> ### Section 3.1, Unclear clause
>
> The parenthetical
>
>          where 'x' refers to either a bit position with value '0' or '1'
>
> Is unclear, probably what you mean is
>
>          where 'x' refers to a bit position with value either '0' or '1'
>
> ### Section 3.1, Pool 3
>
> I found the discussion of 0x01, 0x03, 0x05, 0x07 under the heading of Pool 3 to
> be confusing, considering that we are told Pool 3 has format 0bxxx01, and so
> 0x03 and 0x07 are by definition not part of it. Would it make sense to end the
> description of Pool 3 right after "... if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" and make
> the remaining text a standalone paragraph and not part of the Pool 1/2/3
> hanging list?
>
> ### Section 3.2, For want of a comma, the point was lost
>
> I wasn't able to unambiguously construe
>
> ```
> Similarly, another study found many routers remark all traffic except those
> packets with a DSCP that sets the higher order bits to 0b11 (see Section 4 of
> this document). ```
>
> until I finally found the answer in the final paragraph of Section 4.2.1. So,
> at the very least you might update your reference to point the bamboozled
> reader specifically to that paragraph or at least subsection. I would also
> suggest at minimum adding a comma between "traffic" and "except", but really
> why not just rewrite it in a way that's a bit more direct?
>
> ### Section 4.2.1, Gnomic entries in Table showing 0b000xxx DSCPs
>
> I was expecting that some later text would help me understand what "ToS Prec
> B1. of AF11..41", "EXP/LU", "ToS Prec B1 of AF13..EF" and "Exp/LU" mean, but
> none ever came. I surmise that the "ToS Prec" business means "these are
> assigned things that ToS-bleach down to the same thing", but really the work to
> figure that out was greater than the work to just read the preceding "Table of
> DSCP values" and come to the conclusion myself. And neither "EXP/LU" nor
> "Exp/LU" (why the different capitalizations?) are ever explained.
>
> It seems to me that this table is too pithy to be of use to the casual reader
> such as myself, and likely too obvious to be of use to the expert reader.
>
> ### Section 4.2.1, Is LE 1, or 4?
>
> You write "The Lower-Effort Per-Hop Behavior PHB (LE) uses a DSCP of 4". But
> elsewhere (the "Table of DSCP values", other tables, Section 6.2.1) you tell me
> LE is DSCP 1.
>
> ### Section 5.1.1 Including? Included?
>
> "IEEE 802.1Q specified a 3-bit Priority Code Point (PCP) field including in a
> tag that allows Ethernet frames to be marked as one of eight priority values
> [IEEE-802-1Q]."
>
> I don't know from 802.1Q, so I can't work out if there's a comma missing before
> "including", or if "including" should be "included". (Or something else I
> haven't contemplated.)
>
> ## NITS
>
> "as well unassigned DSCPs" -> "as well as unassigned DSCPs" (insert 'as')
>
> ## Notes
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues.
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments