Skip to main content

Y.1541-QOSM: Model for Networks Using Y.1541 Quality-of-Service Classes
RFC 5976

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from nsis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2010-10-06
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2010-10-06
10 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5976' added by Amy Vezza
2010-10-06
10 (System) RFC published
2010-02-25
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-02-25
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-02-25
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-02-24
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-02-19
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-19
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-02-19
10 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-02-19
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-02-19
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-02-19
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2010-02-07
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2010-02-05
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2010-02-05
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-02-05
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-10.txt
2010-02-05
10 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-02-04
2010-02-04
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-02-04
10 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2010-02-04
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-02-04
10 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Editorial nit: IN section 2.1, classes 6 and 7 are described in a different way than the other classes.  I think the net …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2010-02-04
10 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-02-03
10 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-02-03
10 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
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 …
[Ballot comment]
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".
2010-02-03
10 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-02-03
10 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
There are some acronyms that could usefully be expanded on first use.

---

Section 3.1

TMOD extension parameter

It is unusual to allocate …
[Ballot comment]
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?
2010-02-03
10 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I assume that [TRQ-QoS-SIG] is Q.Sup51.
According to Recommendation A.13, Supplements are informative and do
not have the backing of full ITU-T Study …
[Ballot discuss]
I assume that [TRQ-QoS-SIG] is Q.Sup51.
According to Recommendation A.13, Supplements are informative and do
not have the backing of full ITU-T Study Group formal approval. In
particular "They do not imply any agreement on the part of ITU-T"
In view of this, it does not seem appropriate to use [TRQ-QoS-SIG]
as a normative reference.

---

Section 2 summarise the concepts documented in Y.1541. This is a useful
section. However, it is not clear to me whether in this draft the
definitions of Y.1541 or the definitions reproduced as summaries are
normative. It is important that there be only one normative source, and
I expect you mean that to be Y.1541. I suggest that the introductory
text of Section 2 should include a note that "the material in this
section is provided for information and to make this document easier
to read, however the normative definitions are found in [Y.1541] and
in the event of any discrpencies, the definitions in that document
take priority."

---

Section 3.1

  The QSPEC parameter behavior for the TMOD extended parameter is
  similar to that defined in Section 3.3.1 of[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec].

If it is "similar" then it is different. If so, you need to describe
the differences. If this is documented somewhere else in the I-D then
please give a pointer.
2010-02-03
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-02-02
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Brian Weis.
2010-02-02
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot comment]
Who is implementing this?
2010-02-02
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2010-02-02
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-01-29
10 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review Brian Carpenter on 19 Jan 2010 raised significant
  concerns.  I have not seen any discussion of them.  They need …
[Ballot discuss]
The Gen-ART Review Brian Carpenter on 19 Jan 2010 raised significant
  concerns.  I have not seen any discussion of them.  They need to be
  addressed.

  > 3.1.  Traffic Model (TMOD) Extension Parameter
  >
  >  The traffic model (TMOD) extension parameter is represented by one
  >  floating point number in single-precision IEEE floating point format
  >  and one 32-bit reserved field.
  >
  >      0                  1                  2                  3
  >      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  >    |M|E|N|r|          15          |r|r|r|r|          2            |
  >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  >    |  Peak Bucket Size [Bp] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)    |
  >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  >    |                            Reserved                          |
  >    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  >
  >                        Figure 1: TMOD Extension

  Suddenly we have a protocol element defined in detail, but no explanation
  of what protcol it extends. Is this part of a QSPEC, or what? There should
  be some explanation and a reference.

  Same concern for Section 3.2 and the Restoration Priority Parameter.

  Brian suspects that a full analysis would find other hidden normative
  statements, such as in Section 4.6, as below.

  > 4.6.  Preemption Behaviour
  >
  >  The default QNI behaviour of tearing down a preempted reservation is
  >  followed in the Y.1541 QOSM.
2010-01-29
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund Ballot has been issued by Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund Created "Approve" ballot
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-02-04 by Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-29
10 Magnus Westerlund Intended Status has been changed to Experimental from Informational
2010-01-28
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-09.txt
2010-01-28
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-01-27
10 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:

QUESTION: What is the registration procedure for values 64-255
in the Restoration Priority Field registry?

NOTE: These assignments and new sub-registries are to …
IANA questions/comments:

QUESTION: What is the registration procedure for values 64-255
in the Restoration Priority Field registry?

NOTE: These assignments and new sub-registries are to be
included in a parent registry that has not been yet set up. The
draft creating that parent registry has not yet been approved.

Upon approval of this document and ietf-nsis-qspec, IANA will take
the following actions:

ACTION 1:

make new assignments in the registry "NSIS QSPEC Parameter ID"
in the "NSIS QSPEC" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------- ---------
TBD TMOD Extension [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
TBD Restoration Priority [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]


ACTION 2:

create the following registry in the "NSIS QSPEC" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: Restoration Priority Field
Range Registration Procedure
----- ----------------------
0-63 Specification Required
64-255 ?????

Value Range: 8 bits unsigned integer (0-255)

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------- ------------------------
0 best-effort priority [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
1 normal priority [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
2 high priority [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
3-255 Unassigned

QUESTION: The values 64-255 are unspecified. What is the Registration
Procedure for these values?


ACTION 3:

create the following registry in the "NSIS QSPEC" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: Time to Restore Field
Registration Procedure: Specification Required

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------------------- ------------------------
0 Unspecified Time-to-Restore [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
1 Best Time-to-Restore: <= 200 ms [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
2 Normal Time-to-Restore <= 2 s [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
3-15 Unassigned


ACTION 4:

create the following registry in the "NSIS QSPEC" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: Extent of Restoration Field
Registration Procedure: Specification Required

Value Description Reference
----- -------------------------------- ------------------------
0 unspecified EOR [RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
1 high priority restored at 100%; medium priority restored at 100%
[RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
2 high priority restored at 100%; medium priority restored at 80%
[RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
3 high priority restored >= 80%; medium priority restored >= 80%
[RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
4 high priority restored >= 80%; medium priority restored >= 60%
[RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
5 high priority restored >= 60%; medium priority restored >= 60%
[RFC-nsis-y1541-qosm-08]
6-15 Unassigned
2010-01-14
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis
2010-01-14
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Brian Weis
2010-01-14
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-01-14
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-01-14
10 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-14
10 Magnus Westerlund Last Call was requested by Magnus Westerlund
2010-01-14
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-01-14
10 (System) Last call text was added
2010-01-14
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-01-13
10 Magnus Westerlund Will continue processing of this when the new version of QSpec is available.
2010-01-06
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-01-06
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-08.txt
2009-10-16
10 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Magnus Westerlund
2009-10-16
10 Magnus Westerlund Comments sent to authors and NSIS WG.
2009-10-16
10 Magnus Westerlund State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Magnus Westerlund
2009-10-16
10 Magnus Westerlund Note field has been cleared by Magnus Westerlund
2008-11-16
10 Magnus Westerlund
Write-up for Y.1541 QoS Model for Networks Using Y.1541 QoS Classes

    1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and …
Write-up for Y.1541 QoS Model for Networks Using Y.1541 QoS Classes

    1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and
do they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG for
publication?

Yes, it is.

    2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The draft has been discussed in depth for a long time and has passed
the latest Working Last Call.

    3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

    4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.

No.

    5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document has received extensive reviews in the past and has gone
through multiple Working Group Last Calls. The latest WGLC did not
raise any new issues to solve.

    6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize what are they upset about.

No.

    7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of
the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).

There are four nits about references.

  == Missing Reference: 'QoS-SIG' is mentioned on line 414, but not
defined

  == Missing Reference: 'Bp' is mentioned on line 499, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'M' is mentioned on line 501, but not defined

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
      draft-ietf-ippm-framework-compagg-06



    8. Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for
publication as RFCs.)

There are two normative references that are currently in the Area
Director's review process.


    9.  For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a writeup section with the following sections:

          * Technical Summary

    This draft describes a QoS-NSLP QoS model (QOSM) based on ITU-T
    Recommendation Y.1541 Network QoS Classes and related signaling
    requirements.  Y.1541 specifies 8 classes of Network Performance
    objectives, and the Y.1541-QOSM extensions include additional QSPEC
    parameters and QOSM processing guidelines.


              * Working Group Summary

There have been several WGLC on the document, plus several
pre-WGLCs on the document. The editors have gotten extensive
feedback and have clarified text based upon the feedback.

          * Protocol Quality

This document was reviewed by the working group chair as well
as the WG. We feel that this document is ready, and
implementors feel that the specification is implementable.
2008-11-16
10 Magnus Westerlund Draft Added by Magnus Westerlund in state Publication Requested
2008-10-27
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-07.txt
2008-08-28
10 (System) Document has expired
2008-02-25
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-06.txt
2007-11-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-05.txt
2007-04-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-04.txt
2006-11-15
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-03.txt
2006-05-09
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-02.txt
2006-03-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-01.txt
2005-08-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm-00.txt