Re: [tsvwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: (with COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Yes,  rewording without judgement is better.

Thanks, Ruediger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Black, David [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Dezember 2016 02:00
An: Brian E Carpenter; Stephen Farrell; The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black, David
Betreff: RE: [tsvwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: (with COMMENT)

> But "poor" is a judgment call, so Stephen has a point. s/poor/unusual/ 
> would be factual.

Sure, or something like "has not been widely deployed in practice."

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 2:54 PM
> To: Black, David; Stephen Farrell; The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv- [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-
> intercon-12: (with COMMENT)
> 
> On 02/12/2016 04:38, Black, David wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > We may be talking past each other - the "has proven to be a poor 
> > operational practice" statement is intended to be a "running code"
> > observation that Joel (OPS AD) should be able to confirm.
> 
> As a former diffserv WG chair:
> 
> When we put that provision into the original diffserv model, we were 
> trying to give diffserv a chance of running end to end via ISPs that 
> didn't support diffserv - effectively by saying that those ISPs would 
> provide default service for the packets concerned. But in practice, 
> ISPs that have done anything at all about diffserv (i.e. have not 
> simply run their routers with factory defaults) have mainly *chosen* 
> to zero any DSCPs that they don't explicitly support, to prevent 
> unexpected behaviours. I don't think that statement requires 
> consensus, because it's a fact.
> 
> But "poor" is a judgment call, so Stephen has a point. s/poor/unusual/ 
> would be factual.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> >
> > If you would like to see "rough consensus" on this, I may need to 
> > dust off my Kevlar (fire-resistant) vest ;-).
> >
> > Thanks, --David
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 10:32 AM
> >> To: Black, David; The IESG
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> >> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv- [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on 
> >> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-
> intercon-
> >> 12: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi David,
> >>
> >> On 01/12/16 15:12, Black, David wrote:
> >>> Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the review and interest in this draft.
> >>>
> >>> Diffserv Intercon could become a standard, although I'd really 
> >>> like to see
> >> broader operator interest before going there.
> >>>
> >>> On the "bad operational practice" point - the evidence is the 
> >>> widespread
> >> operator deployment of "bleaching"
> >>> DSCPs to zero at network interconnects.  We could cite RFC 7657, 
> >>> which
> >> contains this text in Section 3.2
> >>> on that point:
> >>>
> >>>    So, for two arbitrary network endpoints, there can be no assurance
> >>>    that the DSCP set at the source endpoint will be preserved and
> >>>    presented at the destination endpoint.  Rather, it is quite likely
> >>>    that the DSCP will be set to zero (e.g., at the boundary of a network
> >>>    operator that distrusts or does not use the DSCP field) or to a value
> >>>    deemed suitable by an ingress classifier for whatever network 5-tuple
> >>>    it carries.
> >>>
> >>> Would that help?
> >>
> >> Not really, but not because it's a bad thing to add:-)
> >>
> >> The thing I don't get is whether or not the claim in the document 
> >> is something that has IETF consensus or not. That's because I'm 
> >> ignorant about that topic, so I'm just as happy to believe you when 
> >> you tell me that it's fine, without text changes.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> S.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, --David
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 8:59 AM
> >>>> To: The IESG
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Gorry Fairhurst; 
> >>>> tsvwg- [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on 
> >>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-
> intercon-
> >> 12:
> >>>> (with COMMENT)
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> >>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12: No Objection
> >>>>
> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to 
> >>>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free 
> >>>> to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please refer to 
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-interc
> >>>> on/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -----
> >>>> COMMENT:
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - I'm puzzled by this being informational, it sure seems like 
> >>>> something that could/should be a standard. (I'm not objecting, 
> >>>> just puzzled.)
> >>>>
> >>>> - Section 2: For an IETF consensus document wouldn't it be good 
> >>>> to have some references for claims like "has proven to be a poor 
> >>>> operational practice"? Is that actually a statement where we're 
> >>>> confident of IETF consensus? (I have no clue, I'm just checking 
> >>>> based on the language and the Informational RFC status.)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >