Subject: [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on Atlanta "hum"

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:48 -0500

Hello - this is your new tsvwg co-chair, with <co-chair hat on>.

The Atlanta tsvwg minutes are at:
	http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-tsvwg

Many thanks to Ken and Mirja for being the note-takers.  I have two
action items from the Thursday diffserv-oriented meeting - this
message is about the first, the possible update to the Diffserv
Classes RFC (RFC 4594).

Excerpt from the minutes (slightly edited/corrected):
---------------
- (David Black) there is a suggestion that multi-media conferencing
was not properly supported when Diffserv Classes were first defined.

So, what does the room think about this?  Audience "hum" thinks
James Polk is correct and that a new more granular class is needed.
Particularly, RFCs 4594 and 5127 need some work.

Black states that we need to put this on the list and discuss how
many more things we need to fix.
---------------

Restating - the sense of the room in Atlanta was that interactive
media (e.g., multi-media conferencing) needs to be broken out of the
existing diffserv media classes into at least one new class.

If anyone disagrees with that sense of the room in Atlanta, please
speak up now (please review the appropriate portion of the Atlanta
minutes first).

Caveat: this topic and email are entirely about Diffserv Classes, i.e.,
revising RFC 4594.  If RFC 4594 is revised, RFC 5127 on diffserv class
aggregation will need a corresponding update to fit the new classes
into its aggregates.  This email is *not* about the discussion 
of diffserv usage for interconnection (e.g., the ITU-T SG12 liaison).
That interconnection topic may or may not involve a revision to RFC
5127 (e.g., it could be done in an entirely new document) and will
be covered in a separate email thread; please wait for it.

If the sense of the room in Atlanta is confirmed, the next steps on
Diffserv Classes are that I will work with James to come up with a list
of all the things that he's proposing to change in
draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update and ask the list whether each one
of them needs attention (single subject/question emails).

In particular, this is *not* a call for whether tsvwg should adopt
draft-polk-tsvwg-rfc4594-update - the initial steps are to figure
out the scope of work that should be done.

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:46:53 +0100

David,

again thanks for a well formulated proposal.

After a brief talk with my audio/video QoE experts I agree
to differing telecoferencing (or whatever we call it) from
streaming in DiffServ standards.

I see a need to clarify aggregation of DiffServ classes,
if a revised RFC5127 or a revised RFC4594 are put on
standards track. I'm having issues with RFC5127.

And a side one: terminology may be an issue - we all
use "classes" in our exchanges and Brian correctly pointed
out that it is not as well defined as major parts of the
DiffServ terminology (which, I think, we however hardly use).

Regards,

Rüdiger

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [tsvwg] Diffserv classes (rfc4594bis): Check on Atlanta "hum"

Thanks,
--David