Subject: [conex] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 03:11:33 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-mobile/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not too happy that a document on the IESG table doesn't take into account
the shepherd feedback.
See "A few editing nits that should be addressed before final
publication: " at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-conex-mobile/shepherdwriteup/,
which corresponds to Tim's OPS DIR feedback below.

My review found several issues with the document references and
discussions,
and several of them mirror those of the document shepherd.  I suggest the
OPs
ADs heed the document shepherd words.

2.3.  Accounting for Congestion Volume

   3G and LTE networks provide extensive support for accounting and
   charging already, for example cf. the Policy Charging Control (PCC)
   architecture.

issue: There is no reference to the PCC architecture, even though its
referenced several times.

Section 2.4:

   [I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy] provides specific examples of how
   ConEx deployments can be initiated, focusing on unilateral

typo: unilateral

3.1.  Possible Deployment Scenarios

   We present three different deployment scenarios for congestion
   exposure in the figures below:

issue: There are 4 items listed numerically below this statement.
Please adjust this.

issue: The drawings are not close to the deployment scenarios. I would
suggest doing the work to include each drawing with the appropriate
scenario.

issue: Figures 1-4 refer to objects "UE", "eNB", "S-GW", and "P-GW".
These
are not defined in the document anywhere.

6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for applying CONEX to EPS include, but are
   not limited to, the security considerations that apply to the CONEX
   protocols.

issue: There should be a reference to the draft that discusses the
security
considerations that apply to the CONEX protocols

References:

I-D.briscoe-conex-initial-deploy - "work in progress" is stated, but
draft is
expired.

I-D.briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines - also expired

Appendix B:

    The EPS architecture and some of its standardized interfaces are
    depicted in Figure 1.

This should be Figure 5, which is also distant from the description.
More
effort should be used to place descriptions and figures in close
proximity.

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:40:31 +0200

It will be fixed before it is going forward.

   Martin