Subject: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-11.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:59:35 +0200

Please find below my AD review of draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-11.txt

T are Technical comments, E are editorial. 

I believe that the document is in reasonable shape. Function of the
responses to the review we may decide to do a revised ID or send it to
IETF Last Call and consider the comments below as IETF LC comments. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

T1. IP-Address in 4.15 and 4.16 should not include also a type AVP?
(IPv4 and IPv6) As written the specification and examples seem to deal
with IPv4 only. SO I miss something? 

T2. Was this specification sent for review to IEEE 802.1? I believe that
it should - maybe during the IETF Last Call, especially because of the
VLAN and priority AVPs semantics. For example one of the questions to
ask is about the usage of the values 0 and 4095 for VLAN-IDs. These
usually have special semantics in IEEE 802.1 headers and I would suggest
that we get expert assessment about their usage in filters. 

T3. In Section 5.1 

      0: drop
      1: shape
      2: police
      2: mark

Should be 3: mark I guess

T4. Why is not the list of actions in 5.7 (Excess-Traffic-Action)
consistent with the list of actions in 5.1? 

E1. In section 3.3 the last sentence in the paragraph ('The lower the
numerical value of Rule-Precedence AVP, the higher the rule
precedence.') should come second in the paragraph. 

E2. Under fig.1 the text speaks about one Unmanaged Terminal, while the
figure represents multiple Unmanaged Terminals. 

E3. Section 4.1.4 s/both direction/both directions/

E4. The term ETH priority in 4.1.8.23, 4.1.8.24, and 4.1.8.25 is
slightly mis-leading. There is no such thing as Ethernet Priority, on an
Ethernet there is no priority, and tagged packets are prioritized in the
routers or switches. I suggest to drop ETH from the names and to use
either 8021 or nothing. 

E5. in Section 5.3 - Private Enterprise Number (PEN) is a preferred term
to SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code

E6. The registry policies in the IANA considerations section should be
expressed in terms and with reference to RFC 5226.