Traffic Classification and Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes for Diameter
RFC 5777

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-06-29 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Minor editorial comments:
* In the first sentence of section 4.2.5, s/Day-of-Week-Month/Day-Of-Month-Mask/
* In the first sentence of section 4.2.6, s/Month-of-Year-Month/Month-of-Year-Mask/

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-07-01)
No email
send info
Section 4.1.7.16., paragraph 1:
>    The Port-Start AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Integer32 and specifies
>    the first port number of an IP port range.

  Ports are not IP-layer entities. They only have meaning within
  specific transport protocols, you can't talk about them without tying
  them to a transport protocol. (Also note that DCCP for example also
  uses service codes in addition to ports!)

(Adrian Farrel) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I cleared by Discuss based on comments from Max Riegel that the filters already exist in equipment and can be configured manually. This work simply provides a protocol mechanism for distributing the configuration.

I would like the authors to consider two comments.

1. Should you at least tell the SDOs that own the technology that you have eveloped a protocol mechanism for distributing the filters that can be used in relation to their technology?

2. Would it be helpful if the I-D said somewhere "this type of filter already exists in lots of hardware especially WiMAX boxes and these protocol extensions simply allow the distribution of information to configure existing filters?

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) Abstain

Comment (2009-07-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It is hard for me to see how the general security considerations for Diameter can be sufficient for QoS.  QoS features have a specific threat model, with some threats that other Diameter applications don't have and vice versa.