Re: [tsvwg] 2nd WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05, closes 31 October 2022

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

Hi Ruediger,

I (reluctantly) agree – the “right thing to do” does appear to be:

> to write a short draft (to become a standards track RFC) that updates RFC 3140
> to obsolete only that IANA-registered PHBID format and to request that IANA
> close the registry as a consequence.  For an example by analogy of what that
> might look like, see section 3.2 of RFC 6172 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6172#section-3.2 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6172*section-3.2__;Iw!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBLTz0vIw$>)

This will be double-checked at the TSVWG London meeting next week, after which I expect that writing that draft will go on the list of things to be done in my “copious spare time” 😉.

Thanks, --David

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 4:02 AM
To: Black, David
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: AW: 2nd WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05, closes 31 October 2022


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hi David,

I agree to close the registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes/phbid-codes.xhtml [iana.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes/phbid-codes.xhtml__;!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBcO59lcs$> if someone volunteers to update RFC3140. If you were available to do that, I’d of course appreciate.

The non-IETF QoS activities that I’m aware of seem to pursue approaches not requiring or benefitting from such a registry.

Regards,

Ruediger

Von: tsvwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Im Auftrag von Black, David
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. November 2022 04:40
An: tsvwg IETF list <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Betreff: Re: [tsvwg] 2nd WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05, closes 31 October 2022

This WGLC is now closed.  Comments have been sent to the list by Ruediger Geib and myself (as an individual).  Putting on my draft shepherd “hat”, I will work with the authors to resolve them.

Comments from list members would be appreciated on the following somewhat procedural concern:

Some off-list discussion has suggested that this draft would be a useful vehicle for tidying up some loose ends around PHBIDs (PHB Identification Codes).  RFC 3140 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3140/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3140/__;!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBI8tK8Zg$>) defined two PHBID formats, one of which is essentially an embellished DSCP (using the recommended default DSCP for the PHBID), the other of which allows for non-IETF-standard PHBs via an IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes/phbid-codes.xhtml [iana.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes/phbid-codes.xhtml__;!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBcO59lcs$>).  Visiting the registry reveals that it’s still empty, over two decades after publication of the RFC that defined and established that registry, which strongly suggests that the IANA-registered form of PHBIDs is not useful (based on their complete absence in “running code”).

This draft would be a convenient means to request that IANA close that registry to future assignments.  OTOH, this draft might be too convenient, as the proverbial “right thing to do” could well be to write a short draft (to become a standards track RFC) that updates RFC 3140 to obsolete only that IANA-registered PHBID format and to request that IANA close the registry as a consequence.  For an example by analogy of what that might look like, see section 3.2 of RFC 6172 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6172#section-3.2 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6172*section-3.2__;Iw!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBLTz0vIw$>) … and take note of whom the lead author of RFC 6172 is ;-).

Thanks, --David

From: Black, David <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 8:18 PM
To: tsvwg IETF list
Cc: Black, David
Subject: 2nd WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05, closes 31 October 2022


This email announces a 2nd TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:



Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP)

                draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-05

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations/__;!!LpKI!nZvvUaJFSxEJoJPbM8x2qoXSEErdjNF7gWZoAXIAy0UpLiUDfLuViJk8PGxdOK-YCDl49OAvTWPqZCYpOqqBiTWqMUA$>



This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.



This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, October 31.

That should allow sufficient time before the WG meeting in London for

the authors to revise the draft with any changes that result from WGLC

and identify any concerns that merit WG discussion during the London

meeting (scheduled for Monday, November 7).



Comments should be sent to the [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> list, although purely

editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors. Please cc: the

WG chairs at [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>  if you would like the chairs to

track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.



No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.



Thanks,

David, Gorry and Marten

(TSVWG Co-Chairs)