Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter
RFC 5624
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) Discuss
Fundamentally this seems to be an interface for configuring a 2 rate 3-color marker and other QoS behavior. I don't understand why the policer is defined in absolute bandwidth in this draft and doesn't include percentage. If the bw is to describe the actual traffic stream from the source, then absolute value should be sufficient. If it is used to define a QoS policy for some aggregate traffic, then % can be useful. Along with %, we also need the reference bandwidth. The % could be based on a physical port bw or a logical session (with some max rate) in the same box., so a distinction on the reference target needs to be made. Also on the usage of Bandwidth AVP, is it merely a different unit of measurement from the Rate parameter in the TMOD AVP ? It would be good to clarify. For the Priority AVP, is it to be used with RSVP for on-path CAC or for local CAC decision or something else? It would be good to provide some background information in the draft.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection