Quality of Service (QoS) Signaling in a Nested Virtual Private Network
RFC 4923
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
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.
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
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.
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection
Mark's discuss completely covers mine so I have removed it.