A Differentiated Service Two-Rate, Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic
RFC 4115

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-02 for -)
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART


There currently is no WG working on diffserv; this document might
be too small to be part of TSVWG.

1) Not enough motivation why "A Single Rate Three Color Marker" and
   "A Two Rate Three Color Marker" are not sufficient or at least
   what the advanteges of the proposed mechanism proposed are.
2) No security section to speak of. Is the authors sure that this
   cannot be abused any any way?

1) stray non-ascii characters, starting in the Abstract, ® for example.
2) Copyright, IPR, etc. statements need updating.
3) "The differentiated service defines a quality of service (QoS)" 

 - should be:

    "Differentiated Services defines a quality of service (QoS)"
4) Needs to expand various acronyms: L2 VPN for example.
5) Needs an editorial pass.


I could not find discussion of this document anywhere, which worries me.
Technically, I think this is OK, but since it fails the ID-Nits checklist
and some more text in the introduction & in the security considerations
section, I'd probably recommend having the document revised.  


(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-08-30 for -)
There are non-ascii characters in the document.  I see them in the last sentence of the abstract, after the page numbers, and in the references section.

References need to be split.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-01 for -)
  Contains many non-ASCII characters.

  Section 4: s/packets been being dropped/packets being dropped/

  The Security Considerations section is very weak.  What happens if an
  implementation flaw marks all of the packets red?

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Yes) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-02 for -)
I would suggest changing the title to make the difference from RFC 2698 more apparent.