RE: [Tsvwg] [mpls] multiple-working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt

[<toby.moncaster at bt.com>]

I tend to agree with Ben - in effect whatever we end up calling it there
should be a clear explanation of what we think it actually means.

If you are still open to new suggestions how about "traffic information
field" as strictly using it for ECN still isn't traffic management. Or
even "traffic signalling field"

Toby

____________________________________________________________________
Toby Moncaster, <toby.moncaster at bt.com> Networks Research Centre, BT
B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  +44 1473 648734 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces at ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Sent: 21 July 2008 16:15
> To: John Kenney; Loa Andersson
> Cc: L2VPN; mpls at ietf.org; tsvwg at ietf.org; ccamp; pwe3; ahtmpls at itu.int
> Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] [mpls] multiple-working group last call 
> on draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt
> 
> I'm not precious about which term we use but if we use 
> Traffic Management I
> think a paragraph should be added explaining what is meant to 
> put it in
> context.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/07/2008 15:07, "John Kenney" <johnkenney at alumni.nd.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Loa,
> > 
> > This is a good draft.  It's time to rename the EXP field.  While CoS
> > Field may have been a good choice at one time, we've now 
> heard from many
> > who think it is too narrow for current usage of this field.
> > 
> > I suggest "Traffic Management Field".
> > 
> > Traffic management is a common, generic, and concise term.  
> It covers
> > all current uses of the field: scheduling class, drop priority, and
> > congestion notification. CoS really only covers the first.  Traffic
> > management is well-scoped to this purpose, and clearly 
> preferable to CoS
> > in my opinion.
> > 
> > In terms of the draft, I think a simple global substitution 
> of "traffic
> > management" for "class of service" and of "TM" for "CoS" 
> should suffice.
> > 
> > I think in the long run we'll be glad if we bite the bullet 
> now and make
> > this change.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > Loa Andersson wrote:
> >> 
> >> Bob,
> >> 
> >> thanks for useful comments :)
> >> 
> >> Bob Briscoe wrote:
> >>> Loa,
> >>> 
> >>> I believe this draft has no technical effect. However 
> there is some
> >>> truth in the idea that names are important.
> >>> 
> >>> So, let's set aside a few clock cycles to consider this...
> >>> 
> >>> 1/ Is CoS a good description of ECN? Given RFC5129 (Using the EXP
> >>> field for ECN in MPLS), is it really appropriate now to 
> call this a
> >>> CoS field?
> >>> 
> >>> Thinking out loud...
> >>> - CoS is a signal from an ingress to the interior (a request for a
> >>> certain class of service),
> >>> - whereas ECN is a signal from the interior forwarding 
> plane to the
> >>> egress (a response from the interior saying whether the class of
> >>> service requested was congested).
> >>> 
> >>> The way 5129 was done, two (or more) EXP codepoints can 
> be designated
> >>> as the same CoS, but one can be used to say "this packet 
> experienced
> >>> congestion when using this CoS", while the other says "it didn't".
> >>> So, I guess I could live with this field being called CoS, even
> >>> though it's not strictly correct. I can't think of 
> anything better.
> >> 
> >> We had the same discussion when we started to discuss this 
> draft, we
> >> wanted to find a name the covered both cases. We just couldn't come
> >> with a better name, so we said "Let us call it 'CoS 
> Field'" and change
> >> it someone comes up with something better.
> >> 
> >> I'm still open to do that change, but time is kind of 
> running out, the
> >> latest point in time we can do this change is an RFC 
> editor note, when
> >> the IESG has approved the document.
> > 
> 
>