I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22
QoS NSLP QSPEC Template
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 21-Nov-2009
IETF LC End Date: 25-Nov-2009
IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an RFC.
I am concerned about the RFC type. If a revision of the document is
needed, there are a few minor items to consider for inclusion.
Major:
I am unclear about whether the intended status (Informational) for this
document is correct.
At first, it seemed correct. The document is defined as providing a
template for a resource specification block (a QSPEC), and other model
specific documents are expected to define exactly what QoS paramters
they will use.
It even seemed fine that this document mandates that the QSPEC include
the indication of the QoS Model. That is necessary information.
Where I start to have concerns is in section 3.1 of this document.
There, the document starts specifying requirements on any and of QoS
Model documents. It says things like "A QOSM specification MUST include
the following:". If this document is defining normative requirements
for standards track documents (and the text explicitly states that QOSM
definitions sometimes need to be standards track), then I don't see how
it can be an informational document.
If the QOSM requirements, and the QSPEC support requirements ("The QSPEC
objects ... MUST be supported by QNEs.") are actually copied from some
other document, then the problem is a lesser issue of unclear referent.
But if this document is the source for these normative requirements,
it does seem that Informational is wrong.
Given that this document actually defines bits to be used on the wire,
it may be appropriate to publish it as a PS.
Alternatively, BCP may be acceptable, although a bit unusual.
The fact that this document defines the format of information fields and
includes the IANA registration for those fields to be used in QOSM
documents also suggests that informational is inappropriate as it would
create a conceptual dependence of all standards track QOSM documents on
an Informational RFC. Also, this document includes guidelines to follow
in future IANA allocations.
Minor:
In describing the constraints parameters, the text in section 3.3.2
carefully describes the semantics, and the composition rule. However,
it seems to leave out the unit of measure. (The constraints are given in
the detailed message information formats section, but it would seem
sensible to include them in 3.3.2.)
Editorial:
Should there be an editorial note when "minimum QoS" is first described
indicating that the term "minimum" is used generically, as for many
parameters, like loss rate or latency, what needs to be specified is the
maximum acceptable value?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
