Subject: [Diffserv] draft minutes - 51st IETF

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:24:10 -0700

Minutes from the Diffserv WG meeting at the 51st IETF

Status
    Things winding down.

RFC 2598 bis
     -- Scott Bradner
   We need a "changes since 2598" section.

MIB
     -- Fred Baker
   25 specific changes have been agreed to and made, particularly a
signficant rewrite of the front matter and description clauses so as
to make them readable.
   Discussion of Classifier Indices occurred.  This was driven by
several comments on MIB complexity.
   Walter Weiss raised some issues on how to represent droppers in this
MIB.  Walter will provide text describing his proposed changes by
Aug 20.
   Walter also asked for some changes to improve the flexibility of
schedulers.  He is providing the description to the list on this.
   Kwok and Fred will review the posted edits.
   Everything should be completed by Aug 27, the WG chairs' goal
for Last Call.

PIB
     -- Kwok Ho Chan
   Aiming to go to last call on Aug 27 with MIB.  Current PIB is
aligned with current MIB.  Changes will be made to match MIB changes.
   There will be a small change needed to the uniqueness class of the
qosDataPathEntry.

Informal Model
     -- Dave McDysan
   The draft describes concerns about the consistency (or lack thereof)
in the behavior of traffic meters.  He is proposing specific simple
text describing what it takes to make shapers and their subsequent
policiers consistent.  The starting point of the proposed text is to
call for using the same policer and shaper.  Fred Baker pointed out
that some times the appropriate pair are actually different.  In
general things work if the shaper is "tighter" than the policer, but
this is hard to describe simply.  John Wroclawski suggested that we
may well be willing to work with an "imperfect" definition, rather
than trying to produce "perfect" definitions and "perfect"
interoperability between shapers and policers. Significant discussion
ensued about what should be said, where, and to what degree of
precision.  It was agreed that if the service is too tightly defined,
and the shapers and policers are different, and particularly if the
time intervals of interest are small, one is likely not to get the
expect behavior consistently.  It was also noted that mismatches
between expectations of burstiness can also cause undesired
treatment.
   It was agreed that some warnings about this should be in the
informal model, although specifics belong in specific PDBs where they
apply.  Dave McDysan will provide text to the list to be used by the
model editor.

Minor Updates
     -- Kathleen Nichols
   What to do with the New Terms draft?  Proposal is to take
one more editing pass, and request publication as an informational RFC.
Then, whenever 2474 is ready to be updated the two will be obsoleted
together.
This proposal received the consensus of the WG at the meeting.

IPv6 Flow ID
     -- Alex Conta
   This is a heads up on a draft in the v6 working group, to alert
diffserv members to relevant work.  This draft describes how to use
the IPv6 flow label for diffserv classification.

AR PDB
     -- Juha Heinanen
   The goal of this PDB is to provide support for granting an assured
rate of traffic delivery to a traffic aggregate.  This PDB uses the AF
PHB. There are several simulation studies for a range of interesting
cases.  Real world experience is rather harder to come by, although
strongly desired.  Several operators indicated that they are offering
services like this, indicating interest in this kind of PDB. Dave
McDysan expressed an interest in more concrete specifications, perhaps
making it possible in the future to use such a document to aid in
discussions and agreements between providers. 
     John Wroclawski raised a concern that this document may be too
broad, and rather than describing a PDB is actually describing a
family of PDBs.  Dave McDysan described more clearly examples of
several
distinct PDBs could be that are described in the current draft.  Juha
will try to tighten up and clarify the description rather than
creating several almost identical documents.

The consensus of the room was that the proposed PDB passes the test
of being "relevant" by its level of interest, so it should go forward.
Kathie pointed out that the PDB process defined in RFC3086 does not
require close scrutiny of the simulation and/or experimental results
till later in the process.

_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html

---

From: "Andrew Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:05:36 -0700

So, does the WG want the editor (me, I guess) to add Dave's proposed
appendix to the Model draft?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Kathleen Nichols
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Diffserv] draft minutes - 51st IETF

...
Informal Model
     -- Dave McDysan
 ...

---

From: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:25:49 -0700

Sorry, I should have caught that. The sense of things, whereever it
says that "ietferx will provide text" means that ietferx will make
a specific textual suggestion that will be sent to the diffserv
list where it can be viewed and discussed (and consensed or not
consensed...)
If there was a consensus call on anything, it was specifically mentioned
in the minutes, so the absence of such a mention should be interpreted
as none happening. The note is an action item for an ietf person, not
a consensus item.

	Kathie