Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 10 February 2015 17:23 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 5842A1A1AE5 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:23:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 sJEvpKAbWAk7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE351A1AE0 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D46F880ED; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:23:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3C4371B0001; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:23:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DA3E90.1070107@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:23:28 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Kaippallimalil <John.Kaippallimalil@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi@tools.ietf.org>, "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
References: <54D8CE18.1030101@innovationslab.net> <6561EABF52675C45BCDACA1B4D7AA1171DA68E1B@dfweml703-chm>
In-Reply-To: <6561EABF52675C45BCDACA1B4D7AA1171DA68E1B@dfweml703-chm>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wata8tEi7kCHgfO6XKSU0gvKajJ8NqrSo"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/zomKdBG-Wo3vmz0l65HcoqtLt0o>
Subject: Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:23:38 -0000
Hi John, On 2/9/15 4:10 PM, John Kaippallimalil wrote: > Hi Brian, Inline below are the proposed resolutions. > > Thanks, John > >> -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman >> [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 >> 9:11 AM To: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi@tools.ietf.org; >> netext- chairs@tools.ietf.org; netext@ietf.org Subject: AD >> Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos-wifi >> >> All, I have completed my AD Evaluation of >> draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qos- wifi as a part of the publication >> process. I have a few points that I would like to discuss before >> moving this document into IETF Last Call... >> >> * The reference to RFC 2119 needs cleaning up. The Normative >> References section tags the document as [RFC 2119], but section >> 1.1 refers to it as [RFC2119]. > > Section 1.1: will change [RFC2119] to [RFC 2119] Ok. > >> >> * The Introduction uses several acronyms without expansion. >> Notionally, this seems to be because the acronyms are expanded in >> section 1.3. I would suggest avoiding the use of the acronyms >> until after section 1.3. The Introduction should just use the >> expanded terms. > > Section 1 (Introduction): will expand each term such as MAG, LMA, > etc. to Mobility Access Gateway, Local Mobility Anchor, etc. > Ok. >> >> * Definitions >> >> - Do the definitions need to use the 2119 keywords? > > Proposed revision: - TSPECs for both uplink and downlink MAY contain > Peak Data Rate - TSPECs for both uplink and downlink SHOULD contain > the Mean Data Rate. - Minimum Data Rate is OPTIONAL and is not used > in QoS provisioning described here. > I guess I didn't ask my question as clearly as I wanted. The definitions currently have 2119 keywords (albeit in lower-case) and I was curious if they needed to be there in order for them to be correct. I do not see a need to make them upper-case 2119 keywords, just trying to avoid the inevitable comment during IESG review as to whether the lower-case usage was meant to comply with 2119 definitions. >> >> - For simplicity, I would move section 1.3 ahead of section 1.2. > > Proposed revision: move section 1.3 ahead of section 1.2. > Ok. >> >> * Section 2 uses "(in decreasing order)". The context derived from >> the next sentence indicates that is in decreasing order of >> priority. I would state that explicitly. > > Proposed revision: "The levels of priority in EDCA are called access > categories (ACs) and there are four levels (in decreasing order of > priority): Voice, Video, Best-Effort, Background." > Ok. >> >> * Section 3.1.1 >> >> - Step 1 seems to require the AP/MAG to do DPI if TCLAS is not >> present. Does that imply that the AP/MAG must have application >> layer gateway support for each app used by the MN? If so, that >> could have scalability and usability implications. May be worth >> mentioning. > > Proposed revision for step 1 (last para): "It should be noted that > WMM-AC specifications do not contain TCLAS. When TCLAS is not > present, there is no direct way to derive flow specific attributes > like Traffic Selector in PMIPv6. In this case an Application Layer > Gateway (ALG) can derive IP flow details from information in upper > layer protocols (e.g. SIP). It should be noted that an ALG can > increase the complexity of the AP/MAG implementation and affect its > scalability. If no TCLAS is derived, the reservation applies to all > flows of the MN (not desired). Parameter mapping in this case is > shown in Table 2." > The above is fine with me. Is ALG the correct term to describe what is being done here? I could envision DPI also being a correct way of doing this, just want to make sure a future reader clearly understands what needs to be implemented. >> >> - In Step 2, what is the AP/MAG to do if the TCLAS is not present >> (when WMM-AC is used)? Does it construct one via the ALG >> discussed above? > > Proposed revision - add new para in step (2): "If TCLAS is not > present (when WMM-AC is used), TCLAS maybe derived using an ALG and > populated in Traffic Selector. If TCLAS cannot be derived, the > Traffic Selector field is not included in the QoS options." > Same point as the previous comment. Is ALG the correct term or is it really DPI? I don't know the correct answer and the text is fuzzy enough to need some work. >> >> * Section 3.1.2 >> >> - This is the first mention of a policy server and there is no >> description or reference of what the policy server does or how it >> is expected to interact with these QoS mechanisms. At a minimum, >> there should be something in the Definitions that describes this >> function. > > LMA acts as the QoS policy server as far as semantics of this draft > is concerned. > > Proposed revisions a-e: (a) Add clarifying statement in introduction > - section 1: "The LMA (Local Mobility Anchor) configures QoS policies > on MN and AP/MAG. Further details on policy configuration and PCF > (Policy Control Function) can be found in [RFC 7222], section 6.1." > > (b) change policy server to LMA in first para: "When the application > session completes, the LMA, or the MN may signal for the release of > resources." > > (c) revise step (4) to remove reference to policy server. " LMA > receives the PBU and releases local resources." > > (d) in section 3.2.3, first para: " When the application session > completes, the LMA, or the MN may signal for the release of > resources." > > (e) in section 3.2.3, remove step 1. Renumber steps 2 - 5 as 1 - 4. > These all look good. > >> >> - What is the rationale for the order of steps? I could very >> easily see the order being 1, 3, 4, 2. Are there corner cases >> that should be discussed if the original order is not followed? > > Proposed revision: add following text after step 4. "It should be > noted that steps 3 and 4 can proceed independently of the DELTS > Response (step 2)." > Ok. >> >> * Section 3.2 seems like an attempt to cover all possible >> scenarios when it may not be needed. Can a scenario be described >> where the network would originate the QoS signaling? > > Proposed revision - add as example - 3GPP TS23.203, section 7.4.2 > (IP-CAN Session Modification, PCRF Initiated): Replace first sentence > with: " This section describes the case when the QoS service request > is initiated by the LMA. For example an application such as voice > may request the network to initiate configuration of additional QoS > policy as in [TS23.203], section 7.4.2." > Ok. >> >> * Figure 5 is never referenced in the text. > > Proposed revision (in para above Figure 5): " In this use case shown > in Figure 5, the network initiates the release of QoS resources." Ok. Regards, Brian
- [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-qo… Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmi… John Kaippallimalil
- Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmi… Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmi… John Kaippallimalil
- Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmi… Brian Haberman
- Re: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmi… John Kaippallimalil