Shepherd writeup
rfc8325-11

Document shepherd write-up:

                    Diffserv to IEEE 802.11 Mapping
                    draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

1. Summary

Document Shepherd: David Black
Responsible AD: Spencer Dawkins


   As internet traffic is increasingly sourced-from and destined-to
   wireless endpoints, it is crucial that Quality of Service be aligned
   between wired and wireless networks; however, this is not always the
   case by default.  This document specifies a set Differentiated
   Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings
   to reconcile the marking recommendations offered by the IETF and the
   IEEE so as to maintain consistent QoS treatment between wired and
   IEEE 802.11 wireless networks.

The WG has requested Proposed Standard status because this draft
specifies guidelines for Diffserv mappings between wired and wireless
networks that are intended to be implemented by wireless endpoints
and access points.  The WG wants to encourage consistent implementation
of this functionality.

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.  The draft has been significantly modified
as a result, including revising the mappings to resolve concerns about
potential priority inversion between wired and wireless networks.  The
WiFi material has also been reviewed by a WiFi expert.

The mappings in this draft have been stable for about the past year and
are being implemented.  Recent activity on this draft stemming from WG
Last Call has focused on other aspects, primarily security-related (e.g.,
network cannot "trust" DSCP markings set by the originator of traffic)
and related concerns around dealing with possible use and misuse of
the high priority CS6 and CS7 DSCP markings for network control traffic
such as routing protocols.  All of these concerns have been resolved,
and the shepherd is confident that the draft reflects WG rough consensus.

The TSVWG WG is working on revising and replacing the RFC 3662
specification of Lower Effort (less than best effort) Diffserv traffic;
that revision will change the recommended DSCP.  The WG has decided
that this DSCP to UP mapping draft should reflect current "running code"
that uses the CS1 codepoint for Lower Effort traffic and not wait for
completion of work on replacement of RFC 3662 and selection of a new
recommended default DSCP for Lower Effort traffic.

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 2.14.01 reports two Downrefs.  The references to RFC 4594 and
RFC 3662 need to be normative as those documents need to be understood
in order to completely implement these mappings.  It will be necesary to
note these Downrefs during IETF Last Call.

idnits is impossible to completely satisfy wrt RFC 2119.  This draft
uses "NOT RECOMMENDED" as defined by RFC 2119, even though that keyword
is not part of the standard RFC 2119 boilerplate that idnits checks for.

The other two idnits items can be ignored:
	- There is no need for a pre-RFC5378 disclaimer; and
	- The IEEE 802.11 standard is a fine normative reference.

There are no IANA Considerations.


Back