NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for Quality-of-Service Signaling
draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-18

[Ballot discuss]
The writeup says that this is experimental, but the document header says "standards track". I am fine with this being experimental, and just want to make sure that this is fixed in the document header.

[Ballot comment]
One note: As an experimental RFC, I was very impressed by the thought put into the security
considerations.  Reviewing the security implications of different models is really helpful to the
reader.  However, if this document was being considered for standards track, I would have asked
for text describing which GIST features were required to meet the various security
considerations.

To be clear, I am not asking for any changes. I just want to avoid unwelcome surprises in the
case of a successful experiment and resubmission for standards track.

IANA questions/comments:

IANA has several questions about the actions below.

ACTION 1:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Message Type
Registration Procedures: Standards Action

Note: When a new message type is defined, any message flags used with it
must also be defined.

Value Type Reference
----- -------- ----------------------
0x00 Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x01 RESERVE [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x02 QUERY [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x03 RESPONSE [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x04 NOTIFY [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x05-EF Unassigned
0xF0-FF Experimental/Private use [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]


ACTION 2:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Message Objects
Registration Procedures:
0-1023: Standards Action
1024-1999: Specification Required

Note: When a new object is defined, the extensbility bits (A/B) must also
be defined.

Value Object Reference
----- ------------------ ----------------------
0x000 Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x001 RII [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x002 RSN [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x003 REFRESH_PERIOD [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x004 BOUND_SESSION_ID [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x005 PACKET_CLASSIFIER [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x006 INFO_SPEC [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x007 SESSION ID LIST [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x008 RSN LIST [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x009 MSG_ID [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x00A BOUND_MSG_ID [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x00B QSPEC [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x00C-7CF Unassigned [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x7D0-7FF Private/Experimental use [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x800-FFF Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

QUESTION: Value 0x000 is not defined in the document. Should it be
"Reserved" or "Unassigned"?


ACTION 3:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Binding Codes
Registration Procedures: Specification Required

Value Code Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ----------------------
0x00 Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x01 Tunnel and end-to-end sessions [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x02 Bi-directional sessions [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x03 Aggregate sessions [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x04 Dependent sessions [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x05 Indicated session caused pre-emption [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x06-0x7F Unassigned
0x80-0x9F Experimental/Private Use [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0xA0-0xFF Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]


ACTION 4:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Error Classes
Registration Procedures: ??

Value Class Reference
----- ----------------- ---------------------
0 Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
1 Informational [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
2 Success [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
3 Protocol Error [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
4 Transient Failure [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
5 Permanent Failure [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
6 QoS Model Error [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
7-15 Reserved

QUESTION: There is no Registration Procedure defined for assignments to this
registry. Please provide one.


ACTION 5:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Error Codes
Registration rule:
0-8191: Standards Action
8192-12287: Specification Required

Note: Each Error Codes is assigned
within a particular Error Class. This requires the creation of a
registry for Error Codes in each Error Class. The error code 0 in
each class is Reserved.

Class Value Description Reference
------------- ------ ------------------------------------- ----------
Informational 0x0000 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0001 Unknown BOUND_SESSION_ID
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0002 Route Change
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0003 Reduced refreshes not supported
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0004 Congestion situation
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0005 Unknown SESSION ID in SESSION_ID_LIST
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0006 Mismatching RSN in RSN LIST
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 0x0007- Unassigned
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 12288-16383 Experimental/Private Use
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Informational 16384-65535 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

Success 0x0000 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 0x0001 Reservation successful
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 0x0002 Tear down successful
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 0x0003 Acknowledgement
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 0x0004 Refresh successful
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 12288-16383 Experimental/Private Use
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Success 16384-65535 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

Protocol Error 0x0000 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0001 Illegal message type
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0002 Wrong message length
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0003 Bad flags value: an undefined flag
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
or combination of flags was set in the generic flags
Protocol Error 0x0004 Bad flags value: an undefined flag
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
or combination of flags was set in the message-specific flags
Protocol Error 0x0005 Mandatory object missing
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0006 Illegal object present
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0007 Unknown object present
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0008 Wrong object length
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0009 RESERVE received from wrong direction
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000a Unknown object field value
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000b Duplicate object present
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000c Malformed QSPEC
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000d Unknown MRI
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000e Erroneous value in the TLV object's value field
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x000f Incompatible QSPEC
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 0x0010- Unassigned
Protocol Error 12288-16383 Experimental/Private Use
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Protocol Error 16384-65535 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

Transient Failure 0x0000 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0001 No GIST reverse-path forwarding state
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0002 No path state for RESERVE,
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
when doing a receiver- oriented reservation
Transient Failure 0x0003 RII conflict
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0004 Full QSPEC required
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0005 Mismatch synchronization
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
between end-to-end RESERVE and intra-domain RESERVE
Transient Failure 0x0006 Reservation preempted
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0007 Reservation failure
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0008 Path truncated - Next peer dead
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 0x0008- Unassigned
Transient Failure 12288-16383 Experimental/Private Use
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Transient Failure 16384-65535 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

Permanent Failure 0x0000 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Permanent Failure 0x0001 Internal or system error
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Permanent Failure 0x0002 Authorization failure
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Permanent Failure 0x0003- Unassigned
Permanent Failure 12288-16383 Experimental/Private Use
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
Permanent Failure 16384-65535 Reserved
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

QUESTION: Section 6.4 defines the Error code as a 16 bit value
and defines registration rules for values from 0 to 65536. Would
the maximum value be 65535 instead?

QUESTION: Section 6.4 defines the Error code as a 16 bit value.
However, initial assignments are specified as an 8 bit value. Are
the high-order bits all zeros?

QUESTION: Section 6.4 defines the following ranges: "12288-16383:
Experimental/Private Use" and "16384-65535: Reserved". Are these
special ranges relevant to all Error classes?
Should they be defined for all Error classes?


ACTION 6:

IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: QoS NSLP Error Source Identifiers
Registration Procedures: ??

Value Type Reference
---- --------- ---------------------
0x0 Reserved [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x1 IPv4 [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x2 IPv6 [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x3 FQDN Name [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]
0x4-0xD Unassigned
0xE-0xF Experimental/Private Use [RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

QUESTION: Text in section 6.5 states, "Section 5.1.3.4 defines Error
Source Identifiers" and "Initial assignments are given in section
5.1.3.4," while Error Source Identifiers seem to be defined in
section 5.1.3.6. Which section is the right one?

QUESTION: Text in section 6.5 describes the range of the value as 4
bits. However, examples in section 5.1.3.6 show 8 bit assignments. Is
4 bits the right range for this registry?

QUESTION: There is no Registration Procedure defined for assignments
this registry. Please provide one.


ACTION 7:

IANA will make the following assignment in the "NSIS Signaling
Layer Protocol (NSLP) Identifiers" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gist-parameters/gist-parameters.xhtml

NSLPID Description Reference
------- ---------------------- ----------------
32 Code points TBD QoS NSLP Aggregation Levels 0 to 31
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]


ACTION 8:

IANA will make the following assignment in the "IPv4 Router Alert
Option Values" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-routeralert-values/ipv4-routeralert-values.xhtml

Value Description Reference
----- ------------------------ ----------------
32 Code points TBD QoS NSLP Aggregation Levels 0 to 31
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]


ACTION 9:

IANA will make the following assignments in the
"IPv6 Router Alert Option Values" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values/ipv6-routeralert-values.xhtml

Value Description Reference
-------- --------------------------------- --------------------
32 Code points TBD QoS NSLP Aggregation Levels 0 to 31
[RFC-nsis-qos-nslp-17]

Time to review the draft. However, the following two issues will need to be taken care of before last call:

1. There was a request for clarifications on the proxy issue by Roland, that is a small detail.

2. Because the RAO was taken out, we need to change the text a bit, mainly to not talk about RAO, and we probably need not just 1 but 32 or 33 NSLP-ID values to reflect the need for aggregation.

Title: NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling
I-D: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16.txt

Status: Proposed Standard

Response to template:

1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
for publication?

Yes, it is.


2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Yes. The ID has passed working group last calls, has had good reviews during the process, and good feedback by implementors.

3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, etc.)?

No concerns. The document has undergone extensive Working Group review, and has several (at least 3) interoperable implementations.

4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No

5) 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?

There is a strong consensus in the WG supporting this work, at this point there is no disenting voices about the protocol in the WG.

6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

Yes.

8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
(Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
also ready for publication as RFCs.)

The document does split references into normative and informative ones.

9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following
sections:

- Technical Summary

This draft proposes an NSIS Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) for signaling QoS reservations in the Internet. The NSLP is the second layer in the two-layer signaling model defined in RFC 4080. Together with GIST (draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp), it provides functionality similar to RSVP and extends it. The QoS NSLP is independent of the used QoS specification or architecture and provides support for different reservation models.


- Working Group Summary

There have been several WGLC on the document, plus several pre-WGLCs
on the document. The editors have gotten extensive feedback from
implementors and have clarified text based upon the feedback. There
are 3 or more independent implementations of the QoS NSLP, and there
were multiple interop events in the past.

- Protocol Quality

This document was reviewed by the working group chair as well as the
WG. We feel that this document is ready, and implementors feel that
the specification is implementable.