> On Dec 1, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Authors, > thank you for taking on this work. I have a question rather philosophical > than technical. The title of the draft suggests that the models are generic > though they are based on DSCP field of the IP header. Have you considered > extending models to include the Traffic Class field of MPLS Label element? > And if not, then clarify that the models are for networks with IP data plane? > > Regards, > Greg
I would support Greg's comment above. I would add that the DSCP discussed in the draft is called the "Traffic Class" in IPv6 (cf RFC 8200), and it would be nice to add an explanatory sentence somewhere observing on the fact. On the first usage of "DSCP", in addition to the link to RFC 2474, perhaps it should be expanded to "DSCP, Traffic Class [RFC8200], or Traffic Class [correct MPLS RFC]". Or something equivalent. On a technical note, it seems strange to refer to a Cisco proprietary queue management structure (MDRR, cf https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/routers/12000-series-routers/18841-mdrr-wred-18841.html) and a research paper intended for EPON networks (PWFQ, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SPIE.6022..220X), but not the diffserv architecture, or at least without explaining that the "policing policy" etc derive from diffserv.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
