1. Summary
Mirja Kühlewind is the document shepherd and Martin Stiemerling the responsible
Area Director.
This document describes deployment scenarios for ConEX in cellular networks.
The intention is to inform mobile network operators about possible use cases
and therefore this document is informational. The working group considers this
document as important as this is one of the main use cases and initial
deployment scenarios for ConEx.
2. Review and Consensus
There was large consents in the working group to adopt and follow-on with this
document as this is one of the main initial use cases.
This document has seen 4 revision and was serval times presented in the working
group session. There has been no controversial discussion about the document in
the meetings or on the list as this document is information and only explains
concepts (which are detailed in other ConEx documents) for a different
audience. Discussion and feedback mostly (only) led to changes that improve the
readability. The document has only seen a small number of reviews but received
a detailed review by at least on of the experts in the working group.
The document is written and co-authored by people that are also active in the
3GPP community (which the document is directed to) and therefore does not
needed any additional non-working group reviews.
To my knowledge no issues with this document exist.
3. Intellectual Property
All author have confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79 and that there are no IPR
disclosures on the document. Ying Zhang’s email address should be updated in
the authors information of the draft.
4. Other Points
This document has no IANA consideration as it is only informational.
Further there is only one normative reference to 'ConEx Concepts and Use Case'
RFC (6789). This reference could even be moved to informational as well,
however, to get a good understanding of the basic ConEx concept the reading can
be recommended.
This document refers multiple times to an expired draft
(draft-briscoe-conex-initial-deploy). The authors may consider to remove this
reference and add needed text (if any) to this document instead before
publication.
The document states that ECN usage is beneficial. However, the document
implicitly assume a new ECN feedback that provides more accurate ECN
information as currently under standardization in tcpm. This document may state
this more explicitly and refer to the accECN requirements document
(draft-ietf-tcpm-accecn-reqs-08) which is already in the RFC Editor queue.
A few editing nits that should be addressed before final publication:
- The text in section 3.1 (at the beginning and the end) talks about 3
scenarios while a fourth scenario was added with the last revision. Further it
should be mention that the new ConEx-lite scenario can actually be implemeted
without the use of the ConEx protocol itself.
- Beginning of section 3 says: "At the time of writing, the CONEX mechanism is
still work in progress in the IETF working group." This is not quite true
anymore and can be removed.
- End of 3.1 says " A more detailed description will be provided in a future
version of this document." This sentence can also be removed.
- Appendix B refers to figure 1 but should refere to figure 5
- The Security Considerations section says: "Security considerations for
applying CONEX to EPS include, but are not limited to, the security
considerations that apply to the CONEX protocols." The "not limited to"-part
sounds to me like there are security considerations missing. However, this
document has no need to discuss security consideration as it is only
informational. Therefore this sentence should be removed.
These are really only nits that have been overlooked in the final revision and
can easily be applied with a next revision after IESG review. Otherwise the
document is well written and very nice to read.
The idnits check mentioned outdated reference:
== Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of
draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-03
== Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of
draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-08
== Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of
draft-ietf-conex-destopt-05
However, all these docs are close to publication and the references should
anyway be replaced by the respective RFC before publication.