Subject: terminology: DS Field

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 03:24:55 -0500

Just to be clear about what I said and what I think:

1. Until and unless we make a formal change, the official definition
of DS Field is the whole byte, because that is what Proposed Standard
RFC 2474 says.

2. A formal change is when we publish a standards track document that
supersedes 2474 on this point.

   Brian (as co-chair)

3. My personal opinion is that it was a mistake in 2474 for DS Field
to mean the whole byte, and that we should redefine it to mean just
the 6 bits containing the DSCP. 

   Brian (as WG member)

---

From: JR Rivers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 08:18:11 -0700

What will the other 2 bits be used for?

JR

At 03:24 AM 10/7/99 -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>diffserv mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
>Archive: http://www-nrg.ee.lbl.gov/diff-serv-arch/
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 11:20:46 -0500

At the moment they are being used experimentally for ECN
(explicit congestion notification).

  Brian

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 17:04:24 -0700

We should probably see section 3.2 of:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-iana-allocation-02.txt

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 14:09:41 -0400

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-iana-allocation-02.txt

Arf!  Well, the ADs must be right.  Where's the list of things to fix in 
2474?

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:40:52 -0400

> Arf!  Well, the ADs must be right.  Where's the list of things to fix in 
draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-00.txt  :-)

Suggested improvements always welcome.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 17:19:47 -0500

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-iana-allocation-02.txt

You mean the bit where Scott uses a different definition
of DS Field from the one in the Proposed Standard he
shepherded through the IESG ?-)

At this time I'd vote for changing DS Field to mean the 6 bits, in
fact.

  Brian

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:39:48 -0400

> At this time I'd vote for changing DS Field to mean the 6 bits, in
Unless the chairs decide that there is no consensus for this, I will update 
the draft to reflect the wording of the Bradner/Paxon draft.  I will also 
refereance it.  Should there also be an "IANA Considerations" section that 
points to the Bradner/Paxon draft?

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:21:58 -0700

I'd suggest quoting the draft directly and referencing it. I think
you can pass on the IANA Considerations section at this point.

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:39:09 +0300 (EEST)

> At this time I'd vote for changing DS Field to mean the 6 bits, in

i'd also vote for this.  so we would have the tos byte as always the
first 6 bit of it forming a ds field, right?

-- juha

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 14:19:18 -0500

Dan, I'm not sure we really need "IANA considerations" in a terminology
draft. What we *do* need is a record of intended changes to our Proposed
Standard documents, so that we don't have to reconstruct all
these discussions when we get around to updating them.
[For example, not only must 2474bis reflect the redefinition of
"DS Field" but also it should point to the Bradner/Paxson document.]

Do you think we can have a "summary of pending updates" section?

Thanks

  Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair)
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM Internet Div
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org 
Non-IBM email: [email-masked]

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:21:26 -0700

Yes, that's how I see it. And, as Steve Deering pointed out a
while back, he'd persuaded me to do it that way at one point
in the writing of 2474, but I think we drifted back to what's
in 2474 as we ran it by more folks.