Re: Working Group Last Call: RMD QOSM

Re-sending (sorry if duplicate, but something seems wrong with my email)

{ -----Original Message-----
{ From: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R
{ Sent: 30 October 2008 13:13
{ To: 'Jukka Manner'; NSIS Working Group
{ Subject: RE: [NSIS] Working Group Last Call: RMD QOSM
{ 
{ Hi,
{ 
{ A few comments (certainly not a full review!)
{ 
{ S2 terminology
{ I think these should be functional definitions. Eg if the ingress node
is
{ congested your definition implies that it doesn't congestion mark.
{ DiffServ (& PCN) use functional definitions
{ 
{ I think you should add a definition of NSIS aware & unaware. I found
it
{ quite confusing. At the moment when one of these terms is mentioned
the
{ doc often gives a semi-definition. Nsis unaware seems to mean
something
{ like, unaware of nsis signalling, but some sorts of nsis state & rmd
ops
{ are possible. You can tell from the last sentence that I didn't get a
good
{ view of what it meant! For instance I found S4.3.2 , the 2 paras about
{ probing, confusing.
{ 
{ S3.1 top of page 7: measurement-based, "once an admission decision is
{ made, no record need be kept". Surely the ingress needs to keep a
record,
{ because it has to police
{ 
{ 3.2.3 first para
{ "The reason for this.." I didn't understand your reasoning. I think
this
{ is something to do with the <QoS Desired> parameter, which you assumed
I'd
{ know what it does.
{ 
{ 3.2.3
{ 6 different possible signalling schemes is a lot for one document?
{ Items 3 & 4 form a pair (different sever congestion operation) as do
items
{ 5 & 6. but items 1 & 2 don't - why?
{ Wasn't sure what "per aggregate" meant (4.3.1 didn't help) - I guess
this
{ is just standard nsis terminology?
{ 
{ PCN is only mentioned in one sentence in S3.2.3. do you (or rather the
{ iesg) think this is enough? (I'm personally ok with this level.)
{ 
{ 4.6.1.6.2.1
{ "one DSCP for severe congestion indication for each of the AF
classes".
{ Contradicts 3.2.3 where say 0 or 1 AF class?
{ 
{ S5 security
{ Should there be separate considerations for your 6 different possible
{ signalling schemes?
{ Why have you got SHOULDs? Should they be MUSTs?
{ 
{ App A - good that this is now an example in Appendix ( I seem to
remember
{ it was in the main text before)
{ 
{ Fig A.1 - why is there no event for moving from severe cong state to
cong
{ notification state.
{ 
{ Best wishes,
{ phil
{ 
{ { -----Original Message-----
{ { From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of
{ { Jukka Manner
{ { Sent: 27 October 2008 06:46
{ { To: NSIS Working Group
{ { Subject: [NSIS] Working Group Last Call: RMD QOSM
{ {
{ {
{ { Dear all,
{ {
{ { This message starts the Working Group Last Call on the RMD QOSM.
{ {
{ { http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nsis/draft-ietf-nsis-rmd/
{ {
{ { Please submit your comments within two weeks, by Monday November
10th.
{ {
{ { Regards,
{ { Jukka
{ {
{ { ps. And, please people, be a bit more active. Thanks.
{ { _______________________________________________
{ { nsis mailing list
{ { [email protected]
{ { https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis