Subject: [Tsvwg] The suggested code point and intended status of draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-03

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:44:35 +0100

Hi,

I have been reviewing DSCPs for Capacity-Admitted Traffic to see if was
ready for WG last call and have some comments and two interlinked questions.

The draft currently suggests to register code point 101101 which belongs
to pool 3 as defined by RFC 2474. I wonder pool 3 was selected over
taking a number in pool 1. Why is 101101 better than for example 101100?
  According to RFC 2474 standards action in pool 3 is for when pool 1 is
exhausted. So please clarify why we should break the RFC 2474
recommendations around assignments.

Secondly, the draft intended status according to the header is BCP. The
document is also written in that style. My reading of RFC 2474 and RFC
2434 is that they requires a document registering a new DSCP at IANA to
be STANDARDS TRACK. I think our milestone for this document reflects
that when saying that the document is intended to be published as
proposed standard. So why has the author tried to target this as a BCP?

I will send the minor details in a separate email.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund