Subject: (ngtrans) diff-serv comments on transition mechanisms spec

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:51:08 -0700 (PDT)

I've forwarded the discussion from diff-serv.

The issue is what to say about the TOS field when encapsulating
and decapsulating.

Brian suggested some text which I can paraphrase as "diff-serv considerations
might change this behavior in the future".
I don't know how useful such change would be - all it would do is to flag
the reader that something else might happen. I assume there would
still need to be a specification for tunnel implications for diff-serv,
since we have many different tunneling schemes.

David Black suggested text to state what needs to be done
but the issue of the two ECN bits is not resolved.

Note that transition mechanisms is moving towards draft standard
and the diff-serv RFCs are at proposed. Thus we can't have a normative
reference to the diff-serv RFCs since they are at a lower level.

So perhaps the best thing is to have diff-serv publish documents that
refer to all forms of tunneling.

   Erik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:04:57 +0100

Erik,

> refer to all forms of tunneling.

We may have to do that, but I don't want diffserv to be in the
position of obsoleting an IPv6 document as a result, which is
why I suggested my cryptic weasel words. (They might need even
more weaselness to avoid being considered a normative reference.)

If you publish the text as it is there is definitely a conflict,
whatever diffserv does.

  Brian