Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv draft
Subir Das <subirdas21@gmail.com> Tue, 28 May 2019 16:08 UTC
Return-Path: <subirdas21@gmail.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 76C2F12013A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YQCqOhE7nofO for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x432.google.com (mail-wr1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A85C120155 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x432.google.com with SMTP id f8so20907691wrt.1 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZpPn6M+UEvQGyMKEEo3cEhmuo34dDApZmuZkOeCf+eU=; b=Sgct/tgzZd/hXqWwMhCa7tkz3Y4NVXeFR8Z6bMA72ce9BEBJ/Em98GcPrCoXJzQmhM WeiyrMNw2ALyPJZaKYJZeqz7+bIrzDCiSJcxNtWIRBe5hbU5EQ751pHSjjq752RL/GkW zXFeS2hL1T47qEIdQvjEIeNyHs1qlDSlQGo/K7vHlE46XIQivudWDq7V7gW9vt9zNN7i qm93S/AihNnCpgPWnMn+wKzTjH+0Orkyj0GtxJIDl/8D56d3iNcDG8JVc+uZhxmeVbtg 2fOk9CHUF0hzGt+vBgBYKP8oxJ6fl7jZfgRkFfO5rr/kUvxFKfvODpMkVS+MfDlWMQco 8ekA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZpPn6M+UEvQGyMKEEo3cEhmuo34dDApZmuZkOeCf+eU=; b=BN2G4WCIkERVrvkCAHyN99PdUa1HRGpRzPpKDu1Uk3QcIhHJUk5RPZsc5Cd/CJOp3s MVEi1JjQBNKz4FKYHwoVX6H3GrfQTszTvCGTkNE/mSWHpj8akwzzY4XxSzltfSW5k4cF HdDHbU1v13CyfNv0mQOw5rV3xzYJB6UO/WOkANC7KihHYvxYkuMu83UN2P7b7/p/rFQv ttOHGTAULSze7YH3//wiBxVAp/fESuA53B2QkWHrCD3GpYwXsVrBVMM6qmuYjjmrZsHc 1DTEYDRl1UNMHHWj64Uw6x7ANO12X57htz0Uc4WuBgGPN2ZHAvcgZefzSJe1I0JCK0Qq nHxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbgTOL9JU8N2IZmfOS8lYlTRWk5tapTzOuHLm+tv+6jot1z/4V nSO/rqSZjxjfW4fAlOi5tPnzclN3SnPOlGiKqerbcB0P
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy6X/zXLoD8lG4J/pHVzVima4XOXaZ8XZ5GnH1fRXK3ImJSS1DCZcZE9cJPEfnX1yrSDOl5EeCtjViXEGPCUEo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4004:: with SMTP id n4mr24323601wrp.240.1559059721606; Tue, 28 May 2019 09:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Subir Das <subirdas21@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 12:09:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFb8J8ph5uScGC0twO=W2F06T_yvM4pCeLQ+q0-H00cPm8t-Lg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3ddba0589f4e07c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/r3jAeNPcz83K0nFyQD4yObJkC-A>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv draft
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 28 May 2019 16:08:45 -0000
Hello Jerome, I read your ver-01 draft and have the following questions and comments. - What is the motivation of this draft in IETF when 3GPP is the responsible organization to create such a mapping document? - Who will be using these recommendations if such a document exists in IETF? - What is the intent of this document: Informational or Experimental or Standards Track? You cited 3GPP TS 23.203 QCIs mapping table as defined in TS 23.303, but I assume you understand that these QCIs to services mappings are examples only (as clearly mentioned in the service column). The correct mapping is done by the network operators based on their use cases / services and it does follow the IETF guidance on QoS treatment. In some use cases, these mappings are not implemented simply based on QCIs, it uses other parameters such as ARP (Allocation and Retention Priority). Therefore, it makes sense to keep them as examples as 3GPP specifies in their document since these mappings are done based on operator’s policy and should not be a recommendation. Moreover, the draft has several issues. For example, it proposes to put all dialer/conversational voice in a single category with DSCP value 44 (101100)/Voice Admit without differentiating the normal voice signaling and media with ETS (Emergency Telecommunication Service) voice signaling and media. This conflicts with ATIS-1000063 that specifies DSCP 46 (101110)/EF for normal voice signaling and media and DSCP 44 (101100)/Voice Admit for ETS signaling and media. It also conflicts with RFC 5865, which requires differentiation between traffic associated with capacity admitted vs. non-capacity admitted IP telephony sessions. IMO, IETF community SHOULD NOT create a document that recommends the QCI-to-DSCP mappings unless 3GPP asks for it via a liaison. Thanks, -Subir Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv draft "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry@cisco.com> Mon, 15 April 2019 17:07 UTCShow header <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/?q=Jerome#> Dear all, We submitted an update to the Diffserv to QCI mapping document. As part of the 5G finalization, then 3GPP added a few QCIs, and we updated the draft accordingly. We are looking forward to input and feedback, through the mailer and in Montreal. Our ambition is to (eventually) get this draft to a consensus state where we can share it with GSMA, who documents how QCI markings can be translated to other values when exchanged through other domains (e.g. Diffserv) between carriers. Thanks! Jerome https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci/
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Jerome Henry (jerhenry)
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Subir Das
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Jerome Henry (jerhenry)
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Jerome Henry (jerhenry)
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Jerome Henry (jerhenry)
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Subir Das
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Subir Das
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Jerome Henry (jerhenry)
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… julian.richards1
- Re: [tsvwg] updated version of QCI to Diffserv dr… Ruediger.Geib