Re: FW: [Diffserv] Informal WG last call for draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-06.txt

[Dan Grossman <[e-mail]>]

Andrea,
Thanks for the careful review.
> Dan, I was asked to do a review of the "new-terms" draft wrt PolTerm.  In
> general, there is good correspondence, but I have a few minor comments.
> 
> 1. In Section 2, in the second paragraph, it would be helpful to reference
> the Policy Terminology RFC XXX (draft-ietf-policy-terminology-04.txt,
> waiting in the editor's queue) explicitly, since that supports your
> conclusions of SLAs being of a contractual nature.

Agreed.

> 
> 2. The SLS definition in "new-terms" is a bit different (more restrictive)
> than the definition in PolTerm.  The PolTerm definition tries to straddle
> the contractual versus service/conditioning aspects of an SLS.  PolTerm
> states that an SLS ...
>         Specifies handling of customer's traffic by a network
>         provider. It is negotiated between a customer and the
>         provider, and (for example) in a DiffServ environment,
>         defines parameters such as specific Code Points and the
>         Per-Hop-Behavior, profile characteristics and treatment of
>         the traffic for those Code Points. An SLS is a specific SLA
>         (a negotiated agreement) and its SLOs (the individual
>         metrics and operational data to enforce) to guarantee
>         quality of service for network traffic.
> It might be valuable to mention that the "new-terms" definition further
> restricts that specified in PolTerm, for the DiffServ environment.

I'd be hesitant to alter the Diffserv definition, since this was subject of a 
great deal of working group debate.  However, some words to the effect that 
you suggest would be appropriate.
> 
> 3. In the last paragraph of Section 2, where you quote from the PolTerm RFC,
> could you make this a normative reference?

Ok. I'd lost track of the Polterm draft, and frankly forgot to check the RFC 
Editors queue for its status.  The way this was done reflected a concern that 
this draft would get hung up behind the Polterm draft indefinitely.  Since the 
Polterm draft is ahead, it makes perfect sense to make the Polterm RFC 
normative.

> 
> 4. In the last sentence of Section 2, you say "Therefore, the relationship
> between an SLS and a service provisioning policy is that the latter is, in
> part, the set of rules that define the parameters and range of values that
> may be in the former."  Would it be reasonable to say "... define and manage
> to the parameters and range of values ..."?  The word "define" seems too
> restrictive.
>
I'm having problems parsing your proposed sentence.   How can a set of rules 
"manage to" parameters and and a range of values?  

> And, a few nits:
> 5. There are several weird quotation marks in the Status (``work in
> progress'' and ``1id-abstracts.txt'').
There's some wierd character mappings in my HPUX workstation.  I'll move it 
back to a windows platform and spot clean when this goes to the RFC editor.

> 
> 6. In Section 6, there are a few typos...
> 'Hence the imperitive was"SHOULD" rather than "SHALL"' - should be
> "imperative" and needs a space after "was"
oops... 

> 'An egress DS-node at the edge of one DS-domain forwards packets an ingress
> DS-node at the edge of another DS domain.' - needs a "to" after "forwards
> packets"

well spotted.
> 
> 7. Is there a reason for the last paragraph of Section 8 to look different
> than the previous RFC summaries?  The grammar is written to correspond, but
> the missing ":" makes the paragraph difficult to read.

Will look into, thanks.
> 
> Thanks for considering these.

Thanks again for the review.  
> Andrea
> 
Dan


_______________________________________________
diffserv mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diffserv
Archive: http://www2.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/diffserv/current/maillist.html