Subject: Re: [tsvwg] I-D Action: draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci-00.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:36:22 +1200

Hi,

I note that the change noted below hasn't happened in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci-01#section-4.2.10

Since draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb has been fully approved and is in
the RFC Editor queue, and the LE code point has been fixed (00001),
IMHO the recommendation for LE should be updated, and a warning
inserted that CS1 is ambiguous.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 30-Oct-18 05:09, Jerome Henry (jerhenry) wrote:
> Thank you Brian,
> 
> We'll make that correction in the next iteration of the draft, great to hear the news!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jerome 
> 
> On 10/28/18, 9:19 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
>     
>     In https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci-00#section-4.2.10
>     we find:
>     
>     >    ...recommend Low-Priority Data be marked CS1 DSCP.
>     > 
>     >    Note: This marking recommendation may change in the future, as [LE-
>     >    PHB] defines a Lower Effort (LE) PHB for Low-Priority Data traffic
>     >    and recommends an additional DSCP for this traffic.
>     
>     It seems to me that [LE-PHB] has advanced to the point where this recommendation
>     should be the other way round: recommend the new LE codepoint, with a note
>     that historically the CS1 codepoint has been (mis)used for this purpose.
>     
>     Regards
>        Brian Carpenter
>     
>