Diffserv-Interconnection Classes and Practice
draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-14

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this document.

One thing I didn't get is why not have a fifth aggregate that CS1 could be mapped into. Is it just because in other standards that have specified aggregates like this, they've gone with four and not specified one for less-than-best-effort?

I'm also wondering about the choice to reserve AF42 and AF43. For WebRTC and real-time applications (see table at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18#section-5) traffic marked as "Medium" in the table would be treated the same as "Low," which I fear would give incentives for applications to mark their traffic as "High" instead. Unless there is a strong need to reserve AF42 and AF43, it might be nice to just include them.

[Ballot 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.)

[Ballot comment]
I'm pleased with the changes that Last Call review, but I noticed a couple of nits that crept into new text.

In this sentence,

    It is extensible and allows to
add a few more PHBs and DSCPs to the Diffserv-intercon scheme.
   
the text would be clearer if it said who was allowed to add PHBs and DSCPs, or what the process is to do that (which probably makes that clear) - I'm pretty sure I know that, but I'm not getting that from the text.
     
It looks like s/RFC5127s/RFC5127's/, to match other usages in the draft.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, "Gorry Fairhurst" , tsvwg@ietf.org, spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Diffserv-Interconnection classes and practice) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document:
- 'Diffserv-Interconnection classes and practice'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-09-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv PHBs and
  codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at (inter)connections of two
  separately administered and operated networks, and explains how this
  approach can simplify network configuration and operation.  Many
  network providers operate MPLS using Treatment Aggregates for traffic
  marked with different Diffserv PHBs, and use MPLS for interconnection
  with other networks.  This document offers a simple interconnection
  approach that may simplify operation of Diffserv for network
  interconnection among providers that use MPLS and apply the Short-
  Pipe tunnel mode.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document Writeup for Diffserv Interconnection Classes and Practice
draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-06

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv PHBs and
  codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at (inter)connections of two
  separately administered and operated networks, and explains how this
  approach can simplify network configuration and operation.  Many
  network providers operate MPLS using Treatment Aggregates for traffic
  marked with different Diffserv PHBs, and use MPLS for interconnection
  with other networks.  This document offers a simple interconnection
  approach that may simplify operation of Diffserv for network
  interconnection among providers that use MPLS and apply the Short-
  Pipe tunnel mode.

Working Group Summary:

The document has received significant feedback from the WG.

Document Quality:
This document proceeded in parallel with related ITU-T specification (Y.1566).

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?  Gorry Fairhurst

Who is the Responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

This document is ready.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. This draft has been reviewed many times, and the mappings described in the working group.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

David Black confirmed no IPR known - 2nd August 2016
Ruediger Geib confirmed no IPR known - 23rd August 2016

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures known.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus on the discussed DSCPs.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

None.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

Not required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

None.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This memo includes no request to IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
This memo includes no request to IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

None.

This email announces a TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:

            Diffserv-Interconnection classes and practice
                    Intended status: Informational
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-06

This WGLC will run for 2 weeks, ending on 10th July 2016. The results
of the WGLC will be presented at the Berlin IETF meeting.

Comments should be sent to the tsvwg@ietf.org list.  Please cc: the WG chairs at tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org to track your comments as part of the WGLC process. As part of this WGLC, comments are requested on the usability of this
draft, and the relation to published RFCs.

Thanks, Gorry
(TSVWG Co-Chair)