A Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for Capacity-Admitted Traffic
draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-07

[Ballot comment]
Support Cullen's discuss (if the draft's intent was to specify the use of these mechanisms in those services. If that wasn't the intent, perhaps the motivation language could be edited to avoid the problem?)

[Ballot discuss]
Defining how QOS for E911 and defining a solution for MLPP are well outside the charter of the TSVWG. This draft does not have IETF consensus as shown by the last IEPREP BOF, it needs to go to DISPATCH.

[Ballot discuss]
Based on discussions between the authors and the secdir reviewer in Nov 2008, I was expecting
to see references to 4542 and 4230 in the security considerations section.  I was also hoping
they would call out appropriate technologies for "proof of identity" that are considered
"adequately strong", although that point was still under discussion when the email thread
fizzled out.

[Ballot discuss]
I am wondering whether the recommendation to use RSVP in Section 2.3 is in place and directly related to the core content of the document. I also see that it was disputed in the WG without a clear resolution.

I am wondering why there is a need to recommend any specific protocol, given that it specifies the requirements for the admission procedure.

Section 2.2 appropriately specifies:
  The operator's choice of admission procedure MUST, for this DSCP,
  ensure the following:
  [...]

Then the first paragraph of Section 2.3 appropriately talks about
  '...adequate AAA and capacity admission procedures as described in Section 2.2...'

But then the second paragraph of section 2.3 goes into saying:

  On the point of what protocols and procedures are required for
  authentication, authorization, and capacity admission, we note that
  clear standards do not exist at this time for bandwidth brokers,
  NSIS has not been finalized at this time and in any event is limited
  to unicast sessions, and that RSVP has been standardized and has the
  relevant services.  We therefore recommend the use of RSVP at the
  UNI.

I think this recommendation for RSVP is too strong, and I wonder whether a recommendation for any specific protocol is needed at all in this document. Any admission mechanism that meets the requirements of section 2.2 should be fine for this DSCP service and sufficient in order to conform to this Proposed Standard.

Hannes Tschofenig raised this concern in January 2009 in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/current/msg09004.html. There was then some debate between Hannes and Ken Carlberg but then the discussion died wihout any comment from the authors and with no change in this section in version -06. Have I missed any proposal for consensus on this?

[Ballot comment]
The Abstract says...

  ...for real-time traffic classes similar to voice...

A nit, but the traffic class is not similar to voice. The Introduction
says this much better. Any chance of polishing the Abstract?


---

Section 1.
Paragraph 3 begins...

  These applications...

Which applications? Is this paragraph intended to be attached to
paragraph 2, or is the whole context of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2
supposed to be applications rather than traffic classes?

The second sentence of the same paragraph reads...

  Reserving capacity for them is important to application performance.

I think you reserve capacity for traffic flows, not for applications?

---

Section 1.1

Do you have a reference for your definition of UNI? It doesn't seem to
conform completely with the definition I am used to in transport
networks withint the ITU-T. I think that the main issue I have is that
your definition implies that the use of a UNI indicates that the UNI-C
and UNI-N do not trust each other. Maybe just needs a tweak on the
wording.

Should your NNI really be termed "E-NNI"?

---

Section 1.2

s/may not be present/might not be present/

---

Section 2.3 says...

  It is the belief of the authors that either PHB implementation

Is this not the work of the TSV Working Group with IETF consensus?
Can this please be rephrased. Either "It is believed that..." or
(preferably) a simple statement of fact.

---

e-911 is used as a term without explanation or reference.

---

Section 4
Rather obviously, you should ask IANA to asign from Pool 1

[Ballot comment]
For a person not familiar with the underlying technology,
I found the Security Consideration section to be insufficiently detailed
about threats. While the list of threats seems to be adequate,
it would be useful to have some pointers to documents describing possible
remedies (for example how to achieve adequately strong proof of identity),
or a clear statement that the protocol doesn't provide such facility.

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Pool 1 Codepoints" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml

Name Space Reference
---- ----- ----------
VOICE-ADMIT TBD(101100) [RFC-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-05]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

    (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?

Magnus Westerlund is both WG shepherd and the Responsible AD. He has reviewed this version and believe the document 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?
         
This document has received quite good reviews within the WG. No concerns about the depth or breadth of 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         

    (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.
         
No issues and no IPR disclosure so far.       

    (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?
         
It is strong consensus from reasonably big part of the WG.

    (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarise 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         

    (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?
         
Yes         

    (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].
         
Yes, the references are split. There is normative downref due to the update of RFC 4594. This needs to be called out in the IETF last call.         

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
         
IANA section exist and consistent with the purpose for this document.

    (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 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
           
  This document requests one Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
  from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for real-time
  traffic classes similar to voice conforming to the Expedited
  Forwarding Per Hop Behavior, and admitted using a call admission
  procedure involving authentication, authorization, and capacity
  admission.

  This document also recommends that certain classes of video traffic
  described in RFC 4594 and which have similar requirements be changed
  to require admission using a Call Admission Control (CAC) procedure
  involving authentication, authorization, and capacity admission.

Working Group Summary

    There was strong consensus from the one that involved themselves
    with this document.
   
Document Quality

    There has been reasonable amount of review of this document. There
    has been several that indicated interest or need for this new DSCP.
           
Personel
   
    Magnus Westerlund was both WG shepherd and responsible AD.