Re: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb

["Gorry (erg)" <[e-mail]>]

+1

I think it can update, but needs to ADD a DSCP mapping. However, the current use of CS1 needs to also be retained in the mapping, although we recommend the new codepoint.

Gorry

> On 17 Nov 2017, at 15:40, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roland,
> 
>> - Update to RFCXXXX (right now draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11):
>>  put in a section (similar to section 6) that describes
>>  changes to that RFC. To be clear here:
>>  draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 should not be updated, it should
>>  proceed to RFC as is.  draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, however, would
>>  add changes to that RFC, e.g.,
>>   +---------------+------+---------+-------------+--------------------+
>>   | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFC(LE) |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
>>   |     Data      |      |         |             |                    |
>>   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>  It is, however, not clear to me whether to replace the existing
>>  mapping or to add it.
> 
> There's enough "running code" for CS1 that this should be an additional mapping, and should not replace the existing one.  That'll create a need for some text advising which DSCP to choose for Background traffic in the wireless -> wired direction.
> 
> We (chairs) will also ask Spencer to add an RFC Editor note to draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 to add text indicating that this LE PHB draft will be making changes, including adding a DSCP (specific text will be posted to list, once it's crafted ...)
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roland Bless
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:04 PM
>> To: tsvwg <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [tsvwg] Planned update of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as just stated in the session, I plan to update draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb
>> to version 3 with at least the following changes:
>> 
>> - Update the DSCP recommendation to pick a DSCP from Pool 3 (XXXX01),
>>  either 1 or 5 (technical feedback on that appreciated).
>> 
>> - Update to RFCXXXX (right now draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11):
>>  put in a section (similar to section 6) that describes
>>  changes to that RFC. To be clear here:
>>  draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11 should not be updated, it should
>>  proceed to RFC as is. draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, however, would
>>  add changes to that RFC, e.g.,
>>   +---------------+------+---------+-------------+--------------------+
>>   | Low-Priority  | LE   | RFC(LE) |     1       | AC_BK (Background) |
>>   |     Data      |      |         |             |                    |
>>   +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>  It is, however, not clear to me whether to replace the existing
>>  mapping or to add it.
>> - remove the LE-min, LE-strict discussion as it seems to be ok
>>  recommending a LE transport (e.g., LEDBAT++) on top if one wants
>>  LE-strict semantics.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Roland
>