Subject: [tsvwg] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 09:21:39 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The only question this raises for me is whether there are widespread
experimental uses of Pool 3 codepoints. If so, will the people using those will
be aware of this change, or is the likely impact of collisions not viewed as
terribly problematic, or both?

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 13:00:30 -0500

Hi, Alissa,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-dscp-registry/

It's likely someone smart will give you the right answer, but my
understanding from conversations about this draft is that DSCP codepoints
in a domain aren't going to be set randomly, because you have to tell
forwarders what a codepoint means if you want the codepoint to have any
effect, and they aren't going to be coming in from other domains without
bleaching or remarking.

So I think the plan is that anyone who knows enough about DiffServ to be
experimenting with Pool 3 codepoints should also notice when they start
using the same Pool 3 codepoints for something else.

And now, over to the smart people ...

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 08:10:07 +1200

> effect, and they aren't going to be coming in from other domains without

I'm certainly no smarter than Spencer, but yes. DSCPs are slightly
unusual among IETF codepoints, because they are *by definition*
domain-local and therefore should never flow blindly across a domain
boundary. (There's always a theoretical risk of experimental local
use by certain hosts without the knowledge of the domain's operator,
but there's nothing anybody can do about that.)

   Brian