Y.1541-QOSM: Model for Networks Using Y.1541 Quality-of-Service Classes
RFC 5976
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
There are some acronyms that could usefully be expanded on first use. --- Section 3.1 TMOD extension parameter It is unusual to allocate whole 32bit words of reserved space for future use. We normally leave out this sort of padding in the knowledge that we can always extend objects in the future. --- Section 4.1 QNEs may be Stateful in some limited aspects, but obviously it is preferable to deploy stateless QNEs. This seems a bit unhelpful. If it needs to be said, it is not "obvious". So you should explain your assertion with a bried reason. "...in some limited aspects" is not very clear. What does it mean?
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
Who is implementing this?
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
Editorial nit: IN section 2.1, classes 6 and 7 are described in a different way than the other classes. I think the net effect is that the definitions are compatible; however, in reading the document as it stand I wondered if I was missing something different about classes 6 and 7. E.g., 6/7 do not have an introductory summary sentence, and use symbols <= rather than "upper bound": Class 3: Interactive transaction data. Mean delay upper bound is 400 ms, delay variation is unspecified, and loss ratio is less than 10^-3. Application examples include signaling. Class 6: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit emulation. Class 7: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-5. Applications that are highly sensitive to loss, such as television transport, high-capacity TCP transfers, and TDM circuit emulation.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
Excerpted from Brian Weis' secdir review: 2. Section 4.4 refers to "the example given in Section 4.4 of [I- D.ietf-nsis-qspec]". Is that the right section? It discusses extensibility of QSPEC, but there's no example. 3. Reference [Y.1221] has "Y.1541" in its title rather than "Y.1221". 4. Reference [Y.2172] has "Y.1540" in its title rather than "Y.2172".