Fwd: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07

NSIS,
FYI without attachment,
Al

>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
>Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:15:24 -0500
>To: Magnus Westerlund <[email protected]>,
>         [email protected]
>From: Al Morton <[email protected]>
>
>
>Hi Magnus,
>
>It took some extra time to sort-out the interactions/coverage
>between the QSPEC and the Y.1541 QOSM memos (and to celebrate
>the holidays, of course), but we have agreement now.
>
>All your comments below have been addressed in -y1541-qosm-08,
>but note that the term M (Max packet size) will be restored
>in the TMOD parameter of the QSPEC memo and defined there.
>Expect a revised version of the QSPEC shortly.
>
>Also, the Y.1541-QOSM memo has reaped benefits from some
>of your comments on the QSPEC, thanks to an active author
>in common, Jerry.
>
>Otherwise, a review of the diff 7->8 file attached will reveal how
>we have adopted your comments.
>
>thanks from the Y.1541-QOSM authors,
>Al
>
>
>At 08:47 AM 10/16/2009, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Here are my AD comments on Y.1541 QoSM.
>>
>>1. Section 2.2: Please include units for all the parameters that has units.
>>
>>2. Section 3.1: Reference for IEEE floating point spec is missing.
>>
>>3. Section 3.1: What are the definitions of the Bp and M parameter?
>>
>>4. Section 3.2: Why are there a discussion in the document for what the
>>reserved bits may be used to? Aren't they either reserved for future
>>extension or fully defined? If reserved the current sender and receiver
>>behavior need to be defined. Normally; SHALL be set to 0 and SHALL be
>>ignored on reception.
>>
>>5. Section 5:
>>This section defines the registries and initial codepoint assignments
>>    for the QSPEC template, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].  It also
>>    defines the procedural requirements to be followed by IANA in
>>    allocating new codepoints.
>>
>>This seems copied from the QSPEC document. It needs to reworded to
>>correctly indicate what it does. I would also put have subsection for
>>each of the IANA actions the draft do defines:
>>
>>1. Register two QOSEC Parameters
>>2. Define a new registry for Restoriation Priority Parameter.
>>
>>6. Section 6. I don't quite believe that there are no additional
>>security considerations around either the model nor the added
>>parameters. They may very well be handled by the mechanism in the QoS
>>NSLP and QSPEC documents. But I think you need to at least bring up the
>>security issues the model and the new parameters introduce.
>>
>>Please review my comments and revise the document as you find
>>appropriate. If you find me in error or have other suggestions please
>>tell me and the WG.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Magnus Westerlund
>>
>>IETF Transport Area Director
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
>>Fdrvgatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>>SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email protected]
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>