Re: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
Joel,
Thanks for the quick review. I agree with all your comments and suggestions.
Regarding your suggestion on RFC type (change it from Informational to PS), I
believe it could not become PS since the other NSIS documents (GIST & QoS-NSLP)
are Experimental.
Thanks again,
Jerry
--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern
Subject: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
To: "General Area Review Team" , "Mary Barnes"
Cc: "Magnus Westerlun" , "IETF discussion list"
, n...@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nsis-qs...@tools.ietf.org
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 6:32 PM
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?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
Hi Joel and Jerry,
Yes, these are clearly left overs before forcing all the documents into
experimental. I commented in AD review about registration rules
requiring standards track. Which I believe is fixed, but the comments in
the document seems to not have been fixed.
Secondly I think we need to have a discussion on the intended status of
the document. I think I personally do have a preference for publication
as experimental. I agree that it defines so much of the data format and
its rules that it makes sense to have it on the experimental track,
rather than informational.
More views and arguments please.
Magnus
Joel M. Halpern skrev:
> If the problem is that the base documents are experimental, then I am
> very confused by the repeated references in the document to standards
> track documents for defining new state machine transitions. If that
> state machines are standards track, it would seem that the QoS encodings
> for those state machines ought to be standards track as well.
>
> If the state machines are not standards track, then it would seem that
> this document should be experimental, to match the rest of the set.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> Gerald Ash wrote:
>>
>> Joel,
>>
>> Thanks for the quick review. I agree with all your comments and
>> suggestions.
>>
>> Regarding your suggestion on RFC type (change it from Informational to
>> PS), I believe it could not become PS since the other NSIS documents
>> (GIST & QoS-NSLP) are Experimental.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Jerry
>>
>> --- On *Sat, 11/21/09, Joel M. Halpern //* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Joel M. Halpern
>> Subject: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
>> To: "General Area Review Team" , "Mary Barnes"
>>
>> Cc: "Magnus Westerlun" , "IETF
>> discussion list" , n...@ietf.org,
>> draft-ietf-nsis-qs...@tools.ietf.org
>> Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 6:32 PM
>>
>> 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 th
Re: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
If the problem is that the base documents are experimental, then I am
very confused by the repeated references in the document to standards
track documents for defining new state machine transitions. If that
state machines are standards track, it would seem that the QoS encodings
for those state machines ought to be standards track as well.
If the state machines are not standards track, then it would seem that
this document should be experimental, to match the rest of the set.
Yours,
Joel
Gerald Ash wrote:
Joel,
Thanks for the quick review. I agree with all your comments and
suggestions.
Regarding your suggestion on RFC type (change it from Informational to
PS), I believe it could not become PS since the other NSIS documents
(GIST & QoS-NSLP) are Experimental.
Thanks again,
Jerry
--- On *Sat, 11/21/09, Joel M. Halpern //* wrote:
From: Joel M. Halpern
Subject: Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
To: "General Area Review Team" , "Mary Barnes"
Cc: "Magnus Westerlun" , "IETF
discussion list" , n...@ietf.org,
draft-ietf-nsis-qs...@tools.ietf.org
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2009, 6:32 PM
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?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Gen-Art Review: draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-22.txt
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?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
