[tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-07

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

This was a very dense read, and I found only a few things to ask about, and
half of those are nits.

Nice work.

Please take a look at my evaluation comments, and let me know how you'd
like to proceed.

Thanks, as always.

Spencer

Nit, but it's in the Abstract ...

   This document specifies a set Differentiated
   Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings

should this be "... set of Differentiated Services Code Point ..."?

I'm looking at this text,

   There is also a recommendation from the Global System for Mobile
   Communications Association (GSMA), specifically their Mapping Quality
   of Service (QoS) Procedures of Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) and WLAN
   [RFC7561] specification.  This GSMA specification was developed
   without reference to existing IETF specifications for various
   services, referenced in Section 1.1.

and I'm not quite sure how an IETF-stream Informational RFC produced by a
working group becomes "a recommendation from GSMA" and "a GSMA
specification". I recognize the names of the RFC 7561 authors, and I see
the connection, but I would have thought that the reference would have been
to something more obviously tied to GSMA. Is there any reference that could
be cited, to help people who didn't sit two desks away from one of the
authors see the connection?

In this text,

   This document assumes and RECOMMENDS that all wireless access points
   (as the bridges between wired-and-wireless networks) support the
   ability to:

is "bridges" the right word here? I would read that as saying that wireless
access points are a layer two-layer two bridge. If you have readers who are
familiar with IEEE 802.1 bridging, they may be more confused than I was.

A nit - "unusued" -> "unused"

I really appreciate the inclusion of Section 6, as an overview of IEEE
802.11 QoS. I'd suggest that this not be titled as "Appendix" - which
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc7322.txt.pdf doesn't think is part
of an RFC body, so at a minimum they would move it behind the security
considerations, but I'd be OK if you left it as a normal Section in the
body. Alternatively, if you're happier with this material as an Appendix,
it's probably better to slide it to the back material.

A nit - "oftheir" -> "of their"

I'm looking at the last paragraph of the Security Considerations, and I'm
thinking that

   Finally, it should be noted that the recommendations put forward in
   this document are not intended to address all attack vectors
   leveraging QoS marking abuse.  Mechanisms that may further help
   mitigate security risks include strong device- and/or user-
   authentication, access-control, rate limiting, control-plane
   policing, encryption and other techniques; however, the
   implementation recommendations for such mechanisms are beyond the
   scope of this document to address in detail.  Suffice it to say that
   the security of the devices and networks implementing QoS, including
   QoS mapping between wired and wireless networks, SHOULD be considered
   in actual deployments.

is missing the (perhaps obvious) point that the mechanisms you list under
"further help" aren't specific to wireless networks, but should be
considered for any network that implements QoS. That might be covered in
the last sentence, but that's not what I'm getting out of the last sentence.