Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

Document shepherd write-up:

  Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint (DSCP)

1. Summary

Document Shepherd: David Black
Responsible AD: Martin Duke
Intended RFC status: Informational

   This document discusses considerations for assigning a new
   recommended DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per Hop
   Behavior (PHB).  It considers the common observed remarking behaviors
   that the DiffServ field might be subjected to along an Internet path.
   It also notes some implications of using a specific DSCP.

Many years after publication of the original DiffServ RFCs 2474 and
2475, the operational public Internet does not fully comply with their
DSCP processing provisions.  That has implications on choice of the
recommended DSCP for any new PHB, some of which are subtle.  After
discovering some of these subtleties in assigning recommended DSCPs
for the LE (Lower Effort) PHB and the in-progress NQB (Non Queue
Building) DSCP, the TSVWG WG produced this draft to document the
lessons learned, including summarizing the Internet measurement
results that provide insight into the nature and prevalence of
various DSCP remarking behaviors in the operational public Internet.

This draft's purpose is to provide information for the community on
DSCP assignment considerations, so publication as an Informational RFC
is appropriate.

2. Review and Consensus

The Transport Area WG (tsvwg) is a collection of people with varied
interests that don't individually justify their own working groups.

This draft is supported by the portion of the tsvwg working group that
is familiar with and interested in Diffserv.  The draft has received
significant review and critique from a number of Diffserv experts,
including the draft shepherd.  There is clear consensus in the WG to
document these lessons learned, and this draft has not been
controversial in the WG.

3. Intellectual Property

Each draft author has stated his/her direct, personal knowledge that any
IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance
with BCPs 78 and 79.

4. Other Points

idnits pointed out that RFC 1349 is obsolete.  This reference to an obsolete
RFC is deliberate and necessary to describe the history of the bits that
currently constitute the DSCP field.

idnits is using an outdated version of the Copyright Notice boilerplate.
The boilerplate in the draft is correct, even though idnits rejects it.

idnits complained about an IPv4 address in the draft, but there are no IPv4
addresses in the draft.  idnits appears to be mistaking a four-component
section reference (in "see Section of [RFC2475]") for an IPv4