Hello.
Thank you for your response. Please find my comments inline.
On pondělí 27. června 2022 19:31:27 CEST Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > Add a couple of aliases for well-known DSCP values.
> >
> > As per RFC 4594, add "df" as an alias of "cs0" with 0x00 value.
> >
> > As per RFC 5865, add "va" for VOICE-ADMIT with 0x2c value.
>
> Quickly browsing, I don't find "va" nor 0x2c in this RFC above? Could
> you refer to page?
As per my understanding it's page 11 ("2.3. Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted Telephony Service Class") here:
Name Space Reference
--------- ------- ---------
VOICE-ADMIT 101100 [RFC5865]
Am I wrong?
> > As per RFC 8622, add "le" for Lower-Effort with 0x01 value.
>
> This RFC refers to replacing CS1 by LE
>
> o This update to RFC 4594 removes the following entry from its
> Figure 4:
>
> |---------------+------+-------------------+---------+--------+----|
> | Low-Priority | CS1 | Not applicable | RFC3662 | Rate | Yes|
> | Data | | | | | |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> and replaces it with the following entry:
>
> |---------------+------+-------------------+----------+--------+----|
> | Low-Priority | LE | Not applicable | RFC 8622 | Rate | Yes|
> | Data | | | | | |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> static const struct symbol_table dscp_type_tbl = {
> .base = BASE_HEXADECIMAL,
> .symbols = {
> [...]
> SYMBOL("cs1", 0x08),
> [...]
> SYMBOL("le", 0x01),
I think we shouldn't remove existing symbol, should we? Please let me know if I missed any suggested action item for myself here.
> > tc-cake(8) in diffserv8 mode would benefit from having "le" alias since
> > it corresponds to "Tin 0".
>
> Aliasing is fine, let's just clarify this first.
I mean, "le" would be an alias to "0x01", not to "cs1".
BTW, the reason I included Loganaden Velvindron in Cc is that "le" was already added in the past, but got quickly reverted as it broke some tests. Shall "le" interfere with "less-equal", or what could be the issue with it? If the name is not acceptable, "lephb" or similar can be used instead.
Thanks.
Thanks.
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
