IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] Oversight in draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04?

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sat, 21 April 2018 05:24 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 E213F12D775 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 tcOivVB7J-vp for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 746611271DF for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 14204B0; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1524288254; bh=FvQQJs70LOnWDbFGLlLo6AXMG1/4CCz9dqhdlOxur3s=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=0c/8KHdZq9DbKU1BIEN4OWjLvOwIq3cCJMm2P/PEW3i/kMpVBoYyfkMGG5G8inDFe webobEoqMhvsgzWMUWbH8yaHwfEZsm33FT2GlFJd8f5tn7rduPjquW4rGlMY80MEYh fWNAMEVYGJeMnHajpdWVte1jtxkrEJU6FGGbZVH0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1057EAF; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:24:14 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:24:14 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <a7bc0e8a-9f4c-bfc8-3e40-07adb128d7b4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804210718590.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <ed71c214-6c17-b932-ea8a-704ff2cbe5aa@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804200828410.18650@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936300EBABC@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <73a46204-b0d2-0d71-7c99-15fe0cda9659@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936300EC01F@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <a7bc0e8a-9f4c-bfc8-3e40-07adb128d7b4@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/tyiH4WCneWBIFH0fgqWIpjjZAao>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Oversight in draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 05:24:19 -0000

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 1) restore the original meaning of CS1 (normative);
> 2) suggest mechanisms for dealing with legacy use of CS1
>   for LE behaviour (informative).
> I suspect Mikael agrees with that; if so this is just about wordsmithing.

Yes, that would help a lot!

My idea here is to write a BCP document, but that document can't be 
written properly if we don't have other documents to reference, that 
clarifies what DSCP CPs should go into what queue.

My goal is still to recommend the same two scenarios as stated before, to 
have one recommendation with two queues (BE+LE) and one with three queues 
(BE+LE+everything else), as alternatives to just having single queue (BE).

It might turn into something else when I start to talk to Cable Labs and 
BBF and the operational community, but I won't know that until I get that 
far.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email