Subject: Re: [tsvwg] LE PHB -01 draft comments (from David Black)

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:36:30 +0200

Hi David,

thanks for the review. I hope I addressed most of your points
in the new -02 version of the draft. More inline.

On 04.03.2017 at 00:59 Black, David wrote:
> First of all, thanks for working on this draft to help clean up a
> long-standing set of problems around Lower Effort traffic marking and
> handling.  I’ve done a relatively thorough review of this draft, and
> listed comments in order of occurrence.   Technical issues that need
> some attention are noted with ** for minor issue and **** for major
> issues, and summarized here:
> 
>  
> 
> ** Section 1.2 - I wonder whether the 2nd and 3rd bullets are overstated.

Tried to be more precise in -02.

> **** Section 3 - First paragraph needs some attention as it seems to
> switch back and forth between networks in general and networks with full
> support for LE

Good point, I also tried to separate this a bit more.
> 
> **** Section 5 - “MUST remark” requirement, is not backwards compatible
> with RFC 4594, needs WG discussion

I'll send a separate mail for this.

> ** Section 7 - IANA Considerations need some attention

Yep, but see below...

> ** Section 8 - Mention of traffic “downgraded” to LE seems to conflict
> with recommendations not to downgrade to LE elsewhere.

Rephrased this section.

[...deleted several comments...]

> Also, I just notice that the header on the middle column of the IANA
> registry is “Space” - it should be “Codepoint”:

The registry is correct. It just lists the codpoint _pools_ first.
First column is Pool, the second "Codepoint Space". There is nothing
wrong with that. Then Pool1 assigned DSCPs are listed.

Regards,
 Roland

>    IANA is also requested to correct the header of the middle column
> 
>    of the Pool 1  Codepoints table in that registry by changing it from
> 
>    “Space” to “Codepoint”.

I didn't follow this suggestions due to the prior given reason.

Regards,
 Roland