Subject: [Tsvwg] Comments on the draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-05

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:39:58 +0100

Hi,

In the process of making the WG shepherd writeup I found a few things
that needed commenting:

1. Section 2.1, figure 2:

I think Unadmitted EF and Admitted EF come in the wrong order in this
figure as Admitted EF gets lower priority than Unadmitted, is this correct?

2. Section 2.2:

"Each will
   be described below, then Section 3 will judge which ones are likely
   to meet the requirements of the Admitted Telephony service class."

After the massive removal of text in this part of the document, I don't
think you can claim that the 6 ways are described below, only aspects of
them are.

3. Section 2.2:
   The problem with capacity admission by assumption, which is widely
   reployed in today's VoIP environment, is that it depends on the
   assumptions made.

"reployed"/"deployed"?

As these aren't any serious comments, I will initiate the IETF last call
and you can take these comments as the first IETF last call comments.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:11:19 -0600

> and you can take these comments as the first IETF last call comments.

ack