IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-06

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09081AE03C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:27:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 pJrD9co-oJdH for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5241ADFA0 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:27:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1931; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385101624; x=1386311224; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dbgj0nMEt4nTsWuBIEtY8BIrhjW0uuUj+Y3BhI/iGys=; b=aAC/QsMIbdDnB1c/IETCzLnaheBjAzMtC/Wqjzy2fO0A5vTf1tstlFjH OlX6XFh6XXY9Bp59am2ZYHPme1tM33pCW7fVOrG9uvuQnuLBRo6dmMAEI uP4HEskSh3Uhu+SGFVBIZ9RBGtuUEGoR+ky7kjMV9t4xP76jZ6te+qH1/ c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAP/3jlKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7s/ToEhFnSCJwEEAQEBJEcdAQhtCyUCBAESiAENwQoTBI5OOoQyA4kKjwmSEIMogio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,750,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="286872231"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 06:27:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAM6R3hJ027596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:27:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.200]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:27:03 -0600
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-06
Thread-Index: AQHO50vb+xokjkPH6UeiY66RofeUVw==
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:27:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CEB437AA.EAA40%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1385075794.15070.12.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3521FA6423437045AF66F9831BCCEFCD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-06
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:27:12 -0000

Folks - 

Thanks for posting your reviews on the QoS draft.  We very much appreciate
the great comments.
 


Regards
Sri



On 11/21/13 3:16 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've reviewed draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-06. I think it is in very good
>shape and ready to move forward. Some comments/questions below
>(apologies if some have been already made by previous reviewers):
>
>- Figure 1: to me, current position of "(MAG proposes a revised QoS
>profile)" may lead the reader to think that this is done in the second
>UPN message (7) ), instead of in the first UPA (6)).
>
>- QoS Option. I wonder if it would be better (easier to follow) to
>define a 2-bit field instead of using the combination of D and M flags.
>
>- What are the options of the bit-rates in the defined options (such as
>the one defined in Section 4.2.1)?
>
>- What would happen if a MAG or an LMA does not support the new QoS
>option?
>
>- What happens if there is a request of modification of QoS resources
>for a non-existent PID? Maybe an error code should be defined for this.
>
>- Nits/editorial:
>
>Abstract: "and allow those rules" --> "and allows those rules"
>
>Section 1: "Since the 802.11e standard provides QoS extensions to WLAN"
>--> I think 802.11e is not a standard, but an amendment of a former
>version of 802.11. Not it is part of the standard. Therefore,  Think it
>would be more correct to refer to "IEEE 802.11e extensions", instead of
>"802.11e standard".
>
>Section 4.2.1: "then it depends on the operator's policy and the
>specific deployment as how the total bandwidth for the mobile node on
>each MAG-LMA pair is computed." --> not sure I'm able to parse this
>sentence.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carlos
>
>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>netext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email