[conex] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 01 October 2015 10:11 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: conex@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A445A1A1B28; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1drWNrR6Iz3; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EAC1A1B1C; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 03:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151001101133.22467.47580.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 03:11:33 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/conex/JHfC9zMaPqPpToWzC2BBQX9uu6k>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-conex-mobile@ietf.org, conex@ietf.org, draft-ietf-conex-mobile.ad@ietf.org, conex-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [conex] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: conex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <conex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/conex/>
List-Post: <mailto:conex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex>, <mailto:conex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 10:11:34 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-mobile/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Not too happy that a document on the IESG table doesn't take into account the shepherd feedback. See "A few editing nits that should be addressed before final publication: " at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-mobile/shepherdwriteup/, which corresponds to Tim's OPS DIR feedback below. My review found several issues with the document references and discussions, and several of them mirror those of the document shepherd. I suggest the OPs ADs heed the document shepherd words. 2.3. Accounting for Congestion Volume 3G and LTE networks provide extensive support for accounting and charging already, for example cf. the Policy Charging Control (PCC) architecture. issue: There is no reference to the PCC architecture, even though its referenced several times. Section 2.4: [I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy] provides specific examples of how ConEx deployments can be initiated, focusing on unilateral typo: unilateral 3.1. Possible Deployment Scenarios We present three different deployment scenarios for congestion exposure in the figures below: issue: There are 4 items listed numerically below this statement. Please adjust this. issue: The drawings are not close to the deployment scenarios. I would suggest doing the work to include each drawing with the appropriate scenario. issue: Figures 1-4 refer to objects "UE", "eNB", "S-GW", and "P-GW". These are not defined in the document anywhere. 6. Security Considerations Security considerations for applying CONEX to EPS include, but are not limited to, the security considerations that apply to the CONEX protocols. issue: There should be a reference to the draft that discusses the security considerations that apply to the CONEX protocols References: I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy - "work in progress" is stated, but draft is expired. I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines - also expired Appendix B: The EPS architecture and some of its standardized interfaces are depicted in Figure 1. This should be Figure 5, which is also distant from the description. More effort should be used to place descriptions and figures in close proximity.
- [conex] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-iet… Benoit Claise
- Re: [conex] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft… Martin Stiemerling