Re: [Ieprep] comments on draft-schulzrinne-ieprep-resource-req

> -Also, I think that the requirement implied in number 3 is cumbersome
> and poorly stated.  
> what is the requirement here?  is this a requirement that session setup
> via SIP may need appropriate QoS marked or requested?  if it is, say so 
> directly.

as I read the draft, items 1 through 4 of the Introduction seemed more 
aimed at providing motivation for the R-P mechanism, as opposed to
requirements.  after points 1-4, actual requirements are stated.  one
thing that may help is to divide the Intro section into two parts:
1. Introduction, and 2. Requirements

> - the security requirements are WAY underspecified.

would it be possible to simply point to Ian Brown's draft
<draft-ietf-ieprep-security-01.txt> and expand it if necessary to address 
the security concerns you may have?   my personal view is that I would be 
a bit weary of placing a lot of security work in a requirements doc 
for a labeling mechanism.  mind you, I'm not saying that security is
a non-issue (actually, its quite critical).  but I think because we have 
a number of drafts that need to address the subject, it would be easier to 
have consensus on a single document as opposed to trying to replicate in 
detail security requirements/issues in each and every document.

my 2 cents,

-ken

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep