Quality of Service (QoS) Signaling in a Nested Virtual Private Network
RFC 4923

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

Magnus Westerlund Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-02-01)
No email
send info
My Discuss was resolved through text that Patrik Bose
sent in an e-mail on Jan 24, 2007. I expect the text
to appear in the new revision and leave it to the
responsible AD to ensure this.

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-09 for -)
No email
send info
I'd be pleased to see an update responding to the points raised
in the Gen-ART review by Sharon Chisholm:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg01336.html

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2006-09-26 for -)
No email
send info
Section 1., paragraph 10:
>    interface; a priority scheduler always chooses a datagram from the
>    highest priority class (queue) that is occupied, shielding one class
>    of traffic from jitter by passing jitter it would otherwise have
>    experienced to another class.

  "from most of the jitter" - because packet transmission is not
  preemtable, priority inversion through head-of-line blocking by
  lower-priority packets can occur

Further editing nits mailed to the authors, chairs and shepherds.

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11)
No email
send info
Mark's discuss completely covers mine so I have removed it.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-11 for -)
No email
send info
It might be worth mentioning in the security section about how this leaks information about priorities levels and the cases where it would be inappropriate to use it.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection