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 |