[NSIS] Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 21 November 2009 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101813A67D3; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AxA+E4t5b4rI; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3408D3A67A1; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6658A43039C; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net
Received: from [10.10.10.102] (pool-71-161-50-79.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3703E430399; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B087892.5050901@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:32:34 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:50:41 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, nsis@ietf.org
Subject: [NSIS] Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:32:36 -0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22
     QoS NSLP QSPEC Template
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 21-Nov-2009
IETF LC End Date: 25-Nov-2009
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an RFC.
I am concerned about the RFC type.  If a revision of the document is 
needed, there are a few minor items to consider for inclusion.

Major:
I am unclear about whether the intended status (Informational) for this 
document is correct.
At first, it seemed correct.   The document is defined as providing a 
template for a resource specification block (a QSPEC), and other model 
specific documents are expected to define exactly what QoS paramters 
they will use.
It even seemed fine that this document mandates that the QSPEC include 
the indication of the QoS Model.  That is necessary information.

Where I start to have concerns is in section 3.1 of this document. 
There, the document starts specifying requirements on any and of QoS 
Model documents.  It says things like "A QOSM specification MUST include 
the following:".  If this document is defining normative requirements 
for standards track documents (and the text explicitly states that QOSM 
definitions sometimes need to be standards track), then I don't see how 
it can be an informational document.
If the QOSM requirements, and the QSPEC support requirements ("The QSPEC 
objects ... MUST be supported by QNEs.") are actually copied from some 
other document, then the problem is a lesser issue of unclear referent. 
  But if this document is the source for these normative requirements, 
it does seem that Informational is wrong.

Given that this document actually defines bits to be used on the wire, 
it may be appropriate to publish it as a PS.
Alternatively, BCP may be acceptable, although a bit unusual.

The fact that this document defines the format of information fields and 
includes the IANA registration for those fields to be used in QOSM 
documents also suggests that informational is inappropriate as it would 
create a conceptual dependence of all standards track QOSM documents on 
an Informational RFC.  Also, this document includes guidelines to follow 
in future IANA allocations.


Minor:
In describing the constraints parameters, the text in section 3.3.2 
carefully describes the semantics, and the composition rule.  However, 
it seems to leave out the unit of measure. (The constraints are given in 
the detailed message information formats section, but it would seem 
sensible to include them in 3.3.2.)

Editorial:
Should there be an editorial note when "minimum QoS" is first described 
indicating that the term "minimum" is used generically, as for many 
parameters, like loss rate or latency, what needs to be specified is the 
maximum acceptable value?