Subject: [Tsvwg] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec-02

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:34:12 +0200

Hi,

I have made my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec-02 and do 
have some comments and questions.

1. Section 2.1:

For the session objects shouldn't they point at the definition of the 
FLAGS field?

2. Section 2.1: Extended VDstPort: Can IP addresses really be used as 
global identifiers. What about RSVP in private address domains?

3. Section 2.2:

4. Section 7. The c-type allocation behavior for the new Class 
SESSION-OF-INTEREST should that be according to BCP 96 (RFC 3936)? I 
think it could be good to indicate what rules to apply for future 
C-types in this class.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:27:18 +0200

Hello Magnus,

Thanks for your comments. Please see below:

On 5 Sep 2006, at 17:34, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have made my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec-02 and  
> do have some comments and questions.
>
> 1. Section 2.1:
>
> For the session objects shouldn't they point at the definition of  
> the FLAGS field?
>

Good catch. Yes, there should be a statement about FLAGS field  
content. I will prepare one and submit on the list.

> 2. Section 2.1: Extended VDstPort: Can IP addresses really be used  
> as global identifiers. What about RSVP in private address domains?

Right, this spec can also be used in private address domain. And in  
this case it would not provide a "global" identifier (which we don't  
actually need - just needs to be unique in this network). I will  
replace "globally unique" by "network unique".

> 3. Section 2.2:

Did you have a comment on section 2.2?

> SESSION-OF-INTEREST should that be according to BCP 96 (RFC 3936)?

Yes. Good point.

> I think it could be good to indicate what rules to apply for future  
> C-types in this class.
>

Right.
And even what space to allocate requested codepoints from.
Let me prepare text for this and I will post it on list.

Are you (or anyone) aware of any other changes/comments that need to  
be addressed in the next rev?
(I am not)

Thanks

Francois

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:18:33 +0200

Magnus and all,

>> I think it could be good to indicate what rules to apply for  
>> future C-types in this class.
>>
>
> Right.

To reflect this, I propose to replace the current text in the IANA  
section by the following text:

"  This document requests that IANA allocates two new C-Types under  
the existing SESSION Class (Class 1) for the two new RSVP objects  
defined in section 2.1: GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION and GENERIC- 
AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION. This allocation is in accordance with [RSVP- 
MOD] which defines the default assignment policy as Standards Action  
for new Class-Type values under an existing class.

This document also requests that IANA allocates one new Class-Num for  
the SESSION-OF-INTEREST class, and two new C-Types for the two new  
RSVP objects under that class defined in section 2.2: GENERIC-AGG-IP4- 
SOI and GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI.

The Class-Num for the SESSION-OF-INTEREST class is to be allocated in  
the range from 128 through 183 defined in [RSVP-MOD] as to be  
assigned by Standards Action.

In accordance with [RSVP-MOD], the Class-Types under the SESSION-OF- 
INTEREST class are to be allocated according to the following policy:
	- C-Type values from 0 through 127 are to be assigned by Standards  
Action.
	- C-Type values from 128 through 191 are to be assigned by Expert  
Review
	- C-Type values from 192 through 255 are reserved for Vendor Private  
use
	- C-Type value 1 is to be allocated to the GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI  
object defined in this document
	- C-Type value 2 is to be allocated to the GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI  
object defined in this document
"

Let me know if you have any comments/suggestions.

Francois

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:42:58 +0200

> content. I will prepare one and submit on the list.

I propose to add:

"
Flags

     An 8-bit field. The content and processing of this field is the  
same as for the Flags field of the IPv4/UDP SESSION object (see [RSVP]).
"

and same for IPv6.

Francois

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:35:46 +0200

> object defined in this document

Looks okay to me.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:39:16 +0200

> replace "globally unique" by "network unique".

Good, that solves it as far as I can see.

> Did you have a comment on section 2.2?

No.

> be addressed in the next rev?

Not to my knowledge.

Please submit a version with the discussed changes.

Thanks

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:36:09 +0200

Good,

/Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund