Re: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04 as PS, closes 18 June 2018

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 15, 2018, at 5:01 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> <WG-char-hat=OFF>
> 
> Fred,
> [writing as draft shepherd]
> 
> This draft currently updates RFC 4594

OK, I obviously skipped a step. Let's discuss in Montreal. I'm happy to update 4594, especially with collaborators, but I'll bet this isn't the only update...

> , which I think is the right thing to
> do because a visible technical change is involved, namely changing the
> recommended DSCP for Low-Priority-Data traffic from CS1 to LE.
> 
> That sort of change is beyond what an erratum ought to do, as CS1 was
> the intended value of that recommended DSCP when RFC 4594 was
> published, e.g., item 7 of the IESG Errata Processing Guidelines
> (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html) advises:
> 
>  Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
>  might be different from the intended consensus when the document
>  was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or Rejected.
> 
> I read this as advising reviewers to not approve an erratum making that
> change to the recommended DSCP for Low-Priority-Data traffic, which
> suggests that the draft's current approach of updating RFC 4594 is the
> better course of action to reflect the change in consensus on the DSCP
> value to use.
> 
> Beyond this, I've read the -04 draft, and want to thank Roland for all of his
> efforts and patience to produce a cogent draft on this topic.   I found a
> couple of statements for which it would be helpful to cite informative
> references:
> 
> [1] Section 3.  Applicability
> 
>   Some network providers
>   keep link utilization below 50% to ensure that all traffic is
>   forwarded without loss after rerouting caused by a link failure.
> 
> [2] Section 6.  Recommended DS Codepoint
> 
>   This particular codepoint was chosen due to measurements on the
>   currently observable DSCP remarking behavior in the Internet.
> 
> The latter statement could cite presentation (slides) to TSVWG and/or
> NMRG at an IETF meeting week.
> 
> Roland also mentions this forthcoming change:
> 
>>> - update of webrtc-qos (still in MISSREF)
> 
> Please do add that text - if the webrtc-qos draft is still in MISSREF at the
> RFC Editor when the le-phb draft reaches the RFC Editor, the likely course
> of action (with AD approval) will be to ask the RFC Editor to update the
> webrtc-qos draft and remove the relevant update text from this draft.
> 
> Adding that text now ensures that the WG has the opportunity to
> review that text before it is applied, so that our AD and the IESG
> can be assured that any applied update reflects TSVWG consensus.
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 11:21 AM
>> To: Bless, Roland (TM); Black, David
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04 as PS, closes 18
>> June 2018
>> 
>> I'm not sure whether this draft should update RFC 4594 or not. RFC 4594
>> refers to RFC 3662, and calls the service class "Low Priority Data". I suspect
>> that this draft should either update 4594 or 4594 needs an erratum pointing
>> to the new RFC.
>> 
>>> On Jun 15, 2018, at 2:43 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> this came somewhat early, but ok.
>>> 
>>> I'll submit a version -05 soon with the following planned changes:
>>> - mentioning of scavenger service in title and/or abstract
>>> - abstract mentioning obsolescence of RFC 3662
>>> - clarification of congestion control recommendations
>>> - update of webrtc-qos (still in MISSREF)
>>> - update referral to RFC to be draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Roland
>>> 
>>> Am 01.06.2018 um 03:57 schrieb Black, David:
>>>> This email announces a TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>                A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)
>>>> 
>>>>                       draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04
>>>> 
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This draft is intended to become a Proposed Standard RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 18.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Comments should be sent to the [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> list, although purely
>>>> 
>>>> editorial comments may be sent directly to the author. 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
>>>> 
>>>> draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-04 .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> David, Gorry and Wes
>>>> 
>>>> (TSVWG Co-Chairs)
>