I requested Last Call for this draft because we're approaching IETF 104 and my handoff to Magnus, and I'd like to leave a clean slate for him, but I did spot two editorial changes I'm suggesting during Last Call.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:43 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Area Working Group WG
(tsvwg) to consider the following document: - 'A Lower Effort Per-Hop
Behavior (LE PHB)'
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-07.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2019-02-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document specifies properties and characteristics of a Lower
Effort (LE) per-hop behavior (PHB). The primary objective of this LE
PHB is to protect best-effort (BE) traffic (packets forwarded with
the default PHB) from LE traffic in congestion situations, i.e.., when
resources become scarce, best-effort traffic has precedence over LE
traffic and may preempt it. Alternatively, packets forwarded by the
LE PHB can be associated with a scavenger service class, i.e., they
scavenge otherwise unused resources only. There are numerous uses
for this PHB, e.g., for background traffic of low precedence, such as
bulk data transfers with low priority in time, non time-critical
backups, larger software updates, web search engines while gathering
information from web servers and so on. This document recommends a
standard DSCP value for the LE PHB. This specification obsoletes RFC
3662 and updates the DSCP recommended in RFC 4594 and RFC 8325 to use
the DSCP assigned in this specification.
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
rfc2475: An Architecture for Differentiated Services (Informational - IETF stream)
I do see a couple of things that I'd question, but am happy to send them as Last Call comments if you'd like to get this in front of the IESG before IETF 104. Just let me know what you prefer.
I think either "other" or "otherwise" can go away in this new text:
Some networks carry packets that ought to consume network resources only when no other traffic is demanding them otherwise
Ideally, LE packets SHOULD be forwarded only if no packet with any other PHB is awaiting transmission.
This means
that in case of link resource contention LE traffic can be starved
completely, which may not be always desired by the network operator's
policy. The used scheduler to implement the LE PHB may reflect this
policy accordingly.
If it was me - and this is not my draft - I'd say
Ideally, LE packets would be forwarded only when no packet with any other PHB is awaiting transmission.
This means^ text changes here to here ^
that in case of link resource contention LE traffic can be starved
completely, which may not be always desired by the network operator's
policy. The used scheduler to implement the LE PHB may reflect this
policy accordingly.
but do the right thing, because that will make your new AD happy, if Magnus ends up with this document after I step down ...
Spencer
