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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> > 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.
> 
> I agree, but let's keep that of the critical path for *this* draft.
> 
> I'm think about filing an erratum against RFC 3662, because it started the
> confusion by falsely using the name of a PHB to refer to a codepoint value.

I agree with both, and I'd envision WG discussion of the proposed erratum.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:04 PM
> To: Paul E. Jones; Black, David; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-12 - ends Feb 13
> 
> On 19/02/2016 12:53, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I agree, but let's keep that of the critical path for *this* draft.
> 
> I'm think about filing an erratum against RFC 3662, because it started the
> confusion by falsely using the name of a PHB to refer to a codepoint value.
> 
>     Brian