[netext] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-08.txt

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

We have posted the 09 version of the document. Based on your review feedback and discussion, we have updated the draft.  Please let us know if you have any further comments.

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-09.txt

Regards
Sri






1. Somewhere in the front matter of the draft, there should be some
discussion as to why existing QoS signaling mechanisms are not used
(e.g., RSVP).

[Authors] We have added some text on the overall  QoS architecture, base line assumptions and the scope of the work.


2. Section 2.2 refers to the Allocation and Retention Priority option as
ARP and AARP.  I assume AARP is a typo (but ARP is also an unfortunate
overload...).

[Authors] We now use the term AARP consistently


3. Is there any expectation for infrastructure devices between the MAG
and LMA to provide QoS services for these flows?  If so, how?  With the
QoS information embedded in PMIP messages, how would these intermediate
devices know anything about these QoS parameters and any associated
Per-Hop-Behaviors?  This needs some discussion in the draft to ensure a
consistent deployment view.

[Authors] Captured in the intro section on the end-to-end DiffServ architectural assumption


4. Section 4.1 says that if M=1, D=0, but there is no discussion of what
to do if M=D=1 occurs.  Is the option ignored?

[Authors] We got rid of the flags and used a opcode int field.


5. I am curious as to why a 5-bit Service Request ID is sufficient.  You
have bits available in the Resvd field... Wouldn't an 8-bit field make
operations/comparisons easier?

[Authors] We also re-worked the QoS option per your recommendations/comments


6. Section 4.2 only describes bit-rate-based attributes.  Is this due to
use cases described in other SDOs?

[Authors] No change.


7. What is the handling if there is a conflict between a per-node QoS
attribute and a set of per-flow QoS attributes associated with that node?

[Authors] The peer can renegotiate the QoS proposal, by sending a downgraded profile.