Re: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings

[[e-mail]]

Hi Spencer,



I tried to get in contact with 3GPP when LTE and the QCI were introduced.

  *   QCIs are no markings. They are assigned to their connections  from policy node to terminal.
  *   There’s been a 9 standard QCI set which was mapped in no easy to aggregate way to their DiffServ scheme (GSMA IR.34). I proposed changes.
  *   The standard QCIs are not binding. There’s also no binding subset or minimum subset to implement.
  *   The mapping of standard QCIs to applications is not binding.
  *   There are many more private QCIs, which saw deployment at that time.
  *   LTE and likely 5G schedulers are proprietary.



I stopped working on that.



The best idea that I’ve heard was to introduce a DiffServ scheduler at the LTE(5G) sender and run the wireless section without these QCIs on a best effort base for all mobile terminals (the have a terminus for that mode of operating the wireless section). That would require a rather strong push from the mobile operators.



I didn’t follow their work on 5G QoS.



Regards.



Ruediger





Von: tsvwg <[e-mail]> Im Auftrag von Spencer Dawkins at IETF

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. April 2020 02:54

An: Rodney W. Grimes <[e-mail]>

Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]

Betreff: Re: [tsvwg] Interim meeting agenda for TSVWG April Interim Meetings



Hi, Rodney,



On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:36 PM Rodney W. Grimes <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

> I didn't say this at the mike, so it won't be in the minutes, but ...

>

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:12 AM Gorry Fairhurst <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

>

> > TSVWG,

> >

> > Here is the (shortened) agenda for the on-line interim meetings, based

> > on the Agenda submitted for the Vancouver IETF. If you are scheduled to

> > present in Interim 1 (WG document status), please send slides for us to

> > upload to the meeting materials page. We will shortly distribute

> > information for Interim 2.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Gorry

> >

> > (TSVWG Co-Chairs)

> >

> > ---

> >

> > Wednesday Apr-08-2020 1000

> > 0700-0930 UTC-7 (San Francisco) = 1000-1230 UTC-4 (Boston) = 1500-1730

> > UTC+1 (London) = 1600-1830 UTC+2 (Berlin) = 2200-0030[+1] UTC+8 (Beijing

> > - not on summer time, other 4 are)

> >

> > TSWG Interim #1

> >

>

> (deleted down to)

>

>          6.2   Jerome Henry: QCI and Diffserv API (10 mins)

> >          draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci

> >

>

> The other reason I hope TSVWG pushes a bit more in this space is that the

> final answer may be either "you guys should really be using diffserv" or

> "you guys are working on new 5G markers and you can't map the ones you

> already have onto diffserv now, so good luck" ... and I could live with

> either answer, if it was written down.

>

> No snark intended.

>

> Best,

>

> Spencer



A strong +1, I do understand that the carriers have a far more

robust set of traffic types to deal with, but I would think

some order of alignment in the space should be attempted.



Infact given that the carriers are also carriers of internet

traffic I would of thought that some mapping was already in

place.



^^^^ THIS. I hadn't ever asked myself that question, but that might be a good question for us to keep in mind.



What DO they do now?



Best,



Spencer