Traffic Selectors for Flow Bindings
draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-05

[Ballot discuss] 1. This is a discuss question that I do want to have answered before endorsing publication of this document. As it is not ...

[Ballot discuss]
1. This is a discuss question that I do want to have answered before endorsing publication of this document.

As it is not clear what the purpose of these traffic selectors are. Do you need to have a traffic selector for the DCCP Service Code? Considering that you included other special fields I think this needs to be considered. However, that would only separate out the initial connection establishment for DCCP. Not that it may not be unimportant as DCCP do allow for multiple services to share a port. And if one needs to separate traffic for one of these services and then update with more specific filtering rules after having detected the first packet?

2. Section 3.1, (K)Start DS - Differential Services:

      For
      the purpose of this specification the DS field is 8 bits long,
      were the 6 most significant bits indicating the DS field to be
      matched and the 2 least significant bits MUST be set to 0 by the
      sender and ignored by the receiver.

To me it appears to be the wrong specification of how to treat the ECN bits. It is very important that anyone trying to match a DS start value against an actual packet flow must not include the two least significant bits in this octet that are used for ECN. Otherwise you select packets from the flow in a very strange mannor.

This also applies to Section 3.2 field M specification

I have reviewed this document. It is in good shape and I have sent it forward to IETF Last Call. There were two small issues ...

I have reviewed this document. It is in good shape and I have sent it forward to IETF Last Call. There were two small issues, however, and it would be helpful if you addressed them in a new document revision. Feel free to update the draft during IETF Last Call.

>    (E)Start SPI - Security Parameter Index
>
>      This field identifies the first 32-bit SPI value, from the range
>      of SPI values to be matched, on data packets sent from a
>      corresponding node to the mobile node as seen by the home agent.
>      This field is defined in [RFC4303].

You should indicate that you are talking about *IPsec* SPIs. There are other kinds, too.


> 3.2. IPv6 binary traffic selector
> ...
>
>    (M)Start DS - Differential Services
>
>      This field identifies the first differential services value, from
>      the range of differential services values to be matched, on data
>      packets sent from a corresponding node to the mobile node as seen
>      by the home agent.  Note that this field is called Type of Service
>      field in [RFC0791].  [RFC3260] then clarified that the field has
>      been redefined as 6 bits DS field and 2 bits reserved, later
>      claimed by Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168].  For
>      the purpose of this specification the DS field is 8 bits long,
>      were the 6 most significant bits indicating the DS field to be
>      matched and the 2 least significant bits MUST be set to 0 by the
>      sender and ignored by the receiver.
The reference should be to 2460, not 0791. And RFC 2460 calls this field Traffic Class.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does ...

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

          The document shepherd is Marcelo Bagnulo.
  I have read the document and i think it is ready for
  publication.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

  The document has been reviewed thoroughly.
  I don't have any concerns about the reviews.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

  No further specific review is needed.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

  The document is important and should be published.
  I have no concerns with the document.
  No IPR issues have been raised.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

  The consensus behind the document is strong.
  The document has been reviewed and discussed in depth in the WG.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

  No extreme discontent nor appeal threats have been received.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document
          does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
          the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

  Yes
  No additional formal review is needed for the document.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  The references are split into normative and informative.
  All normative references are RFCs except one i.e.
          draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding which is expected to be progressed
          jointly with this document.
  No downward references are included.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

  The IANA section exists and it is consistent with the rest
  of the document. Proper reservations are defined in the
  IANA section. The corresponding registries are clearly
  identified.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  No section in formal language.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

  This document defines binary formats for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic
  selectors to be used in conjunction with flow bindings for Mobile
  IPv6.


          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
            For example, was there controversy about particular points
            or were there decisions where the consensus was
            particularly rough?

The document has been discussed in depth in the WG.
The WG feels that this is an important document
and should be published.
            The main controversy was whether there should be one or more
            traffic selector format defined. This is one format. There
            is no objection to this format, but rather some people ask for
            an additional format. I don't see that as a stopper for this document
            but it is a related issue that as worth mentioning.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a
            significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
            implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
            merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
            e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
            conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
            there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
            what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
            Review, on what date was the request posted?

There is at least on ongoing effort for implementing this
                specification from Qualcom.

                There were many reviewers of the document, but especial
in depth reviews were provided by Dave Craig, Benjamin Lim,
                Patrick Stupar, and Basavaraj Patil
.
No MIB review nor media type reviews were needed.

          Personnel
            Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
            Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
            experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
            in this document are <to be="" added="" by="" the="" ad="">.'

    The document shepherd is Marcelo Bagnulo
    Responsible INT AD is Jari Arkko