Subject: [Tsvwg] Accepting draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp as WG item

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:33:30 +0100

This is a call for input on accepting An EF DSCP for Capacity-Admitted 
Traffic (draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp) as WG item. Please 
provide any input both positive and negative at the latest on Wednesday 
the 6th of December.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:28:45 -0500

This should be in TSVWG.  I think the draft needs to be reworded
to talk about making EF a multi-class PHB (just as AF is) and then
recommending or requiring that one of the classes (with its default
DSCP) be used only for strictly admission controlled traffic.  The
current language about allocating a DSCP isn't quite right, but
that's mostly a wording issue.

The purpose of Section 2.2 is not clear, and will need attention.

My 0.02,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:34 AM
> To: tsvwg
> Subject: [Tsvwg] Accepting 
> draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp as WG item
>

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:27:25 +0100

Hi Magnus

As I already mentioned during the tsvwg meeting I support this draft, since
the proposed additional EF DSCP can be considered as a multipurpose EF DSCP
that 
can be used to support call based preemption procedures, as well as,
admission 
control based on probing and severe congestion handling solutions.

Best Regards,
Georgios

> Sent: woensdag 22 november 2006 13:34
> To: tsvwg
> This is a call for input on accepting An EF DSCP for 
> Capacity-Admitted Traffic 
> (draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp) as WG item. Please 
> provide any input both positive and negative at the latest on 
> Wednesday the 6th of December.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
>

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:09:52 -0500

On Nov 22, 2006, at 9:28 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> DSCP) be used only for strictly admission controlled traffic. <snip>

Why do you feel there is a need for a multi-class PHB in the form of  
AF?  And how many classes would you like to see?

In the past, other folks had advocated a multi-level EF (MLEF), and  
specifically asked for 5 values that correlated to the 5 values we  
see with MLPP.  If one migrates the admitted-voice-dscp draft to a  
multi-class PHB, it would seem to look more like MLEF.  and so along  
those lines, it may be helpful for the authors to highlight the  
differences from the old MLEF approach and provide some insight on  
why they chose a single value instead of the multi-class PHB  
suggested by David Black.  the insight may just be needed on the list  
as opposed to putting specific text in the document.

finally, given the aim of the admitted-voice-dscp draft -- additional  
distinction for admission controlled traffic -- I too would like to  
see this effort become a working group item.

-ken

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:02:04 -0500

Ken,

> AF?  And how many classes would you like to see?

The EF PHB initially assumed that all EF traffic would be controlled
in such a way that the need for multiple classes of PHBs due to bad
overload behavior would not arise.  I think this draft is plausibly
making the case that this assumption is false.  Off the top of my
head, I'd say 3 or 4 classes - the existing one, one for this
scenario, and one or two for the next time(s) needs occur to protect
a slice of EF traffic from overload in another class.

> as opposed to putting specific text in the document.

I think MLEF got wrapped up with the specifics of the MLPP usage that
motivated it, and there were significant technical issues with the
latter.

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "Jozef Babiarz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:48:52 -0500

I believe there is an industry need to standardize 2 or 3 EF DSCP for
Capacity-Admitted Traffic. Therefore, I support
draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp become a WG item.

Regards, Joe
Telephone: 613-763-6098 
Email: [email-masked]
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:34 AM
To: tsvwg
Subject: [Tsvwg] Accepting draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp as WG
item

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:41:20 -0600

Magnus,

I support this draft becoming a WG item as it is needed in order to
support our services.

Cheers,

Martin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:34 AM
To: tsvwg
Subject: [Tsvwg] Accepting draft-baker-tsvwg-admitted-voice-dscp as WG
item

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Dave McDysan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:53:04 -0500

I support this becoming a working group draft. 

As I mentioned in San Diego and on the mailing list, I believe that the
scope of robust capacity admission controlled services extends beyond voice
into other applications, such as video on demand.

Dave

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:07:02 -0500

I also support this draft becoming a WG item.

If possible, I would like to see a bit more discussion of the pros and cons
of "Two DSCPs, Two Queues" vs. "Two DSCPs, One Queue".  In particular I
would like to see a discussion of the relative policing of the EF and
EF-Admit traffic in the "Two DSCPs, One Queue" case.  I ask this because I
have seen some analysis suggesting that the policing on the EF traffic
could/would be "loose" enough that both EF and EF-Admit traffic would
experience significant dropping when EF traffic experiences a prolonged
"overload".

Also, section 2.2  describes five major ways that capacity admission can be
done.

The document states that the first two listed (2.2.1 "By Assumption" and
2.2.2 "By Call Counting") only qualify for "EF", not  "EF-Admit".
 But it is not clear whether the other 3  (2.2.3   "End-point capacity
admission performed by probing the network", 2.2.4  "Centralized capacity
admission control", and 2.2.5  "Distributed capacity admission control")
qualify for "EF-Admit" or not.

Janet