Subject: [netext] Comments on draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-qos-01.txt

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 22:38:07 +0200

Dear authors, all,

I've read the draft and I find it a very useful missing piece for
NETEXT, thanks for writing it.

While I must admint that I want to read it again more carefully to
provide more comments, I have a couple of questions (apologies if you
have already discussed them):

- The QoS option, is it per flow, per MN or per mobility session?
Looking at the draft I'd say it should support per-flow granularity, but
then I look at the options and I don't fully see if that is the case.

- Regarding the relevant QoS attributes, are you planning to add more or
this will this be left out of the scope of the draft? For example, with
IEEE 802.11e, I'm not sure the mapping could be done without adding
more.

Thanks again for the draft. I think this should be considered to be
included as part of NETEXT work.

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
   GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                IEEE Network Special Issue on
                  Video over Mobile Networks
 http://dl.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0313.htm 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:05:53 +0300

Carlos,

> then I look at the options and I don't fully see if that is the case.

The QoS option allows you to go into the detail RFC6088 traffic selectors
allow. That is into too detailed flow granularity IMHO but possible.. 

However, if you go into QoS information attributes that the draft currently
have, they are defined either per MN or per mobility session but still you
can do everything at flow level. The attributes we have now mostly define
the aggregates.

> IEEE 802.11e, I'm not sure the mapping could be done without adding

Current draft is intentionally rather conservative on attributes. Those
can be added at will.. Our intention was to cover deployment cases we had
immediate (known) need for.

- Jouni

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:43:01 +0200

Hi Jouni,

> can do everything at flow level. The attributes we have now mostly define

Yes, this exactly the impression I got. In some parts of the draft it
seems that flow granularity is possible, but then I missed the
attributes at that level.

> immediate (known) need for.

OK, I just mentioned .11e because it is one of the examples listed in
the draft. In some cases, the mapping between the attributes and the
parameters that would need to be used for a some L2 technologies would
not be very straightforward, but this is an independent issue not
related to what the draft aims at covering.

Thanks,

Carlos