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

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

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