Review of draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-15.txt
Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nsis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi all,
Here is my chair's review of draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-15.txt.
I have reviewed the whole draft and do not see any issue with it. It
is written in an excellent way and seems to be just fine. Thanks to
all who contributed and especially to the editors.
The comments are just editorial or minor clarifications. Please fix
them if possible and submit a new version.
Editorial issues:
- ID nits throws some output (see attached at bottom of this mail).
The only relevant is an editorial nit; 2nd under "miscellaneous
warnings".
- page 6, definition of session: " A session defines an association
between a QNI and QNR related to a data flow." Just for my
understanding: This sounds such as the involved QNEs on the path are
not part of the session? The definition is a bit unclear in this
respect, IMHO.
- page 9, first para has some strange line break, between
"...network" and "management..."
- page 9: para starting with "Policy control..." refers to qos-auth
which is a I-D. Do we still need to point to this draft and if yes,
why it is happening here in the introduction and not in the
appropriate section?
- page 11, first para (cont'd from previous page): s/source of the
each/source of each
- page 11, section 3.1.2, third para, refers to the QSPEC as "ongoing
effort" which is hopefully not true anymore. Rephrasing would be good.
- page 12, the para before the last para, "QoS models..." again
refers to the QSPEC draft, seems to superfluous in this section.
- page 14, third para refers to nslp-auth draft. As we won't have
this draft as WG item, it is appropriate to remove the reference here
and also from the reference section
- page 16, last para, s/a unidirectional/an unidirectional
- page 20, the para before the last para refers to "middle of
session". What is "middle of session"?
- page 21, para before section 3.2.12.1 seems to belong in section
3.2.12.1
- page 24, section 3.2.12 it would be nice to refer to 5.2.5.2 here,
so that people can jump there to see the solution, if desired, and
the more exhaustive explanation
- page 34, last para of section 4.5 has a self-reference to section
4.5 but claiming that it is different.
- page 42, middle of page says three flags, but there are four of them.
- page 45, second para says "Retransmissions SHOULD be disabled." If
haven't understood on which level the retransmission should be
disabled (GIST or NSLP level?).
- page 70, section 5.3.7, first para, last sentence: at locationg i
refer. Needs to be fixed somehow.
- page 74, section 5.4.1, list end of the page: s/The SCOPING/the
SCOPING. also for following bullets. Also for the list on page 75.
- Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 say
..."monitored. If they differ then the BREAK flag of new generated
messages (e.g., QUERY, RESERVE or RESPONSE) SHOULD be set. In
situations ..."
Would RECOMMENDED be more appropriate here? (of course considering
also the case described after ("...BREAK flag MUST not be set...").
- page 76, last para: "Note that QUERY messages with the RESERVE-INIT
flag set MUST be answered by the QNI." Shouldn't it read "...answered
by the QNR."?
- page 79, section 6 (but not going in 6.1 and subsequent): The lists
are broken (formatting issue)
- page 90: Appendix A. It would be good to add something along "This
appendix is informational only."
- page 95: Heading has two times "Appendix B".
That's it.
Thanks!
Martin
*********
ID Nits:
idnits 2.05.03
tmp/draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-15.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC
4748:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-
guidelines.txt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not
match the
current year
== Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an
accepted
usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is
what you
mean).
Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph:
If a stateful QoS NSLP QNE receives a QUERY message with the
RESERVE-INIT flag and BREAK flag set then the BREAK flag of new
generated
messages (e.g., QUERY, RESERVE or RESPONSE) MUST be set. When
a stateful
QoS NSLP QNE receives a QUERY message with the the RESERVE-INIT
flag set
and BREAK flag not set then then the IP-TTL and Original-TTL
values in
GIST RecvMessage primitive MUST be monitored. If they differ
then the
BREAK flag of new generated messages (e.g., QUERY, RESERVE or
RESPONSE)
SHOULD be set. In situations where a QNE or a domain is able
to provide
QoS using other means, see Section 3.3.5, then the BREAK flag
MUST not be
set.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(See RFC 3967 for information about using normative references to
lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of
draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-17
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-nsis-applicability-mobility-signaling-07
== Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
draft-ietf-nsis-rmd-10
Summary: 0 errors (**), 5 warnings (==), 0 comments (--).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
[email protected]
NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis