[tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on Atlanta "hum"
"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Sat, 24 November 2012 22:35 UTC
Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
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 B53D121F8505 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:35:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKFOiNEg8+Zu for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:35:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B300421F8503 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:35:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id qAOMZ3r0016207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:35:03 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd06.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:50 -0500
Received: from mxhub01.corp.emc.com (mxhub01.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.103]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id qAOMYopt029223 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:50 -0500
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.120]) by mxhub01.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.103]) with mapi; Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:49 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:48 -0500
Thread-Topic: Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on Atlanta "hum"
Thread-Index: Ac3Kk+lc4r+wsGOrTG27ykn3TJxxqw==
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71284D3FF1A@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Subject: [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on Atlanta "hum"
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:35:06 -0000
Hello - this is your new tsvwg co-chair, with <co-chair hat on>. The Atlanta tsvwg minutes are at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-tsvwg Many thanks to Ken and Mirja for being the note-takers. I have two action items from the Thursday diffserv-oriented meeting - this message is about the first, the possible update to the Diffserv Classes RFC (RFC 4594). Excerpt from the minutes (slightly edited/corrected): --------------- - (David Black) there is a suggestion that multi-media conferencing was not properly supported when Diffserv Classes were first defined. So, what does the room think about this? Audience "hum" thinks James Polk is correct and that a new more granular class is needed. Particularly, RFCs 4594 and 5127 need some work. Black states that we need to put this on the list and discuss how many more things we need to fix. --------------- Restating - the sense of the room in Atlanta was that interactive media (e.g., multi-media conferencing) needs to be broken out of the existing diffserv media classes into at least one new class. If anyone disagrees with that sense of the room in Atlanta, please speak up now (please review the appropriate portion of the Atlanta minutes first). Caveat: this topic and email are entirely about Diffserv Classes, i.e., revising RFC 4594. If RFC 4594 is revised, RFC 5127 on diffserv class aggregation will need a corresponding update to fit the new classes into its aggregates. This email is *not* about the discussion of diffserv usage for interconnection (e.g., the ITU-T SG12 liaison). That interconnection topic may or may not involve a revision to RFC 5127 (e.g., it could be done in an entirely new document) and will be covered in a separate email thread; please wait for it. If the sense of the room in Atlanta is confirmed, the next steps on Diffserv Classes are that I will work with James to come up with a list of all the things that he's proposing to change in draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update and ask the list whether each one of them needs attention (single subject/question emails). In particular, this is *not* a call for whether tsvwg should adopt draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update - the initial steps are to figure out the scope of work that should be done. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------
- [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on A… Black, David
- Re: [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check … Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check … Black, David