Aggregation of Diffserv Service Classes
RFC 5127

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations section is a cut and paste from RFC 4594.  While I would agree
that the security considerations from 4594 apply to implementations of this spec, the text
has nothing to do with treatment aggregates.  I would have expected a pointer to 4594,
then a discussion of any new issues that arise from treatment aggregates.  (For example,
are new issues introduced by using treatment aggregates at provider boundaries?)

[Ballot comment]
Figure 2 seems to subdivide the DSCP field markings for Assured Elastic and Elastic
treatment aggregates.    For Assured Elastic, the DSCP codes represented in three
groups (on three rows); for Elastic the codes are in two groups.  However, the text
to this point would seem to indicate they should be grouped into a single set, as
with Real Time.  Later text (in 4.1.3 and 4.1.4) seems to indicate these groupings
are priorities within the treatment aggregate.  If that is correct, a brief mention near
Figure 2 in section 4.1 would be helpful.  Alternatively, consider whether that level
of detail is needed in this document.

[Ballot comment]
Figure 2 seems to subdivide the DSCP field markings for Assured Elastic and Elastic
treatment aggregates.    For Assured Elastic, the DSCP codes represented in three
groups (on three rows); for Elastic the codes are in two groups.  However, the text
to this point would seem to indicate they should be grouped into a single set, as
with Real Time.  Later text (in 4.1.3 and 4.1.4) seems to indicate these groupings
priorities within the treatment aggregate.  If that is correct, a brief mention near
Figure 2 in section 4.1 would be helpful.

[Ballot comment]
Figure 2 seems to subdivide the DSCP field markings for Assured Elastic and Elastic
treatment aggregates.    For Assured Elastic, the DSCP codes represented in three
groups (on three rows); for Elastic the codes are in two groups.  However, the text
would seem to indicate they should be grouped into a single set, as with Real Time.
Perhaps this is just a formatting issue?

[Ballot comment]
Figure 2 seems to subdivide the DSCP field markings for Assured Elastic and Elastic
treatment aggregates.    The text would seem to indicate they should be grouped into
a single set, as with Real Time.  Perhaps this is just a result of formatting....

Document Shepherding writeup by Magnus Westerlund for
"Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes"
draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-04
For publication as Informational


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
         
Magnus Westerlund, has personally reviewed it and thinks it is ready for
publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
         
Adequate yes.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?
         
No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.
         
No.

  (1.e)  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?
         
A few individuals.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
         
No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.
         
Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  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
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
         
Yes.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

Yes

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?
         
No formal language used.         

  (1.k)  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

  In the core of a high capacity network, service differentiation may
  still be needed to support applications' utilization of the network.
  Applications with similar traffic characteristics and performance
  requirements are mapped into diffserv service classes based on end-
  to-end behavior requirements of the applications as indicated by
  Diffserv Service Classes [5].  However, some network segments may be
  configured in such a way that a single forwarding treatment may
  satisfy the traffic characteristics and performance requirements of
  two or more service classes.  In these cases, it may be desirable to
  aggregate two or more Diffserv Service Classes [5] into a single
  forwarding treatment.  This document provides guidelines for the
  aggregation of Diffserv Service Classes [5] into forwarding
  treatments.


          Working Group Summary
                         
There are consensus in the WG to publish this document.           
           

          Document Quality
           
There has been review from interested parties, including some with relation
to ISPs.

          Personnel
Responsible document shepherd and AD was Magnus Westerlund.