Be ye not afraid. I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: Unknown. Possibly ready with issues. I'm not a complete idiot, but I wasn't really able to follow this document -- it presumes a huge amount of background knowledge of 802.11 stuff, and uses many acronyms that are not expanded - like PBU/PBA. I'm hoping that Gunter can reassign this to someone who knows this stuff more. This is the first time that I've punted on a review... ----- I *did* collect a bunch of readability nits, so at least this wasn't complete waste of time... Section 1: for Wi-Fi traffic between the Wi-Fi Station (STA) and Access Point (AP). This document describes how QoS can be implemented in a network where the access network is based on IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi). It requires a mapping between QoS procedures and information elements in two segments 1) Wi-Fi segment and 2) PMIPv6 segment (see Figure 1). [O] two segments 1) Wi-Fi segment [P] two segments: 1) WiFi segment [R] readability Some implementations may have AP and MAG in the same network node. However, this document does not exclude various deployments including those where AP and WLC are [O] those where [P] those in which separate nodes, or the AG control and data planes are separate. - Procedure Mapping: PMIPv6 [RFC 7222] defined procedures for QoS setup maybe triggered by the LMA or MAG. IEEE 802.11 QoS setup on the other hand is always triggered by the MN (IEEE 802.11 QSTA). The end- [O] QoS setup on the other hand [P] QoS setup, on the other hand, [R] readability STA A station (STA) is a device that has the capability to use the 802.11 protocol. For example, a station maybe a laptop, a [O] a station maybe a laptop [P] a station may be a laptop [R] intended usage desktop PC, access point or WiFi phone [3]. 3. Mapping QoS Procedures between IEEE 802.11 and PMIPv6 There are two main types of interaction possible to provision QoS for flows that require admission control - one where the MN initiates the [O] one where the [P] one in which the [R] grammar QoS request and the network provisions the resources. The second is where the network provisions resources as a result of PMIPv6 QoS [O] where the network provisions [P] when or if instead of where? request. In the second scenario, the LMA can push the QoS configuration to the MAG. However, there are no standards defined way for the AP to initiate a QoS service request to the MN. 3.1.1. MN Initiated QoS Reservation Request This procedure outlines the case where the MN is configured to start [O] case where the MN [P] case in which the MN [R] grammar the QoS signaling. This is not described further here, but it maybe functionality in an [O] but it maybe [P] but it may be [R] grammar Application Layer Gateway (ALG) or Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). ... If TCLAS is not present (when WMM-AC is used), TCLAS maybe [O] TCLAS maybe [P] TCLAS may be [R] grammar derived from information in upper layer protocols (as described in step 1) and populated in Traffic Selector. 3.2.1. LMA Initiated QoS Reservation Request If the MN initiates QoS [O] the MAG may in consultation with the AP provision a policy that can grant a subsequent QoS request from the MN. [P] the MAG may, in consultation with the AP, provision a policy that can grant a subsequent QoS request from the MN. [R] readability procedures after the completion of PMIPv6 QoS procedures the AP/MAG [O] procedures after the completion of PMIPv6 QoS procedures the [P] procedures after the completion of PMIPv6 QoS procedures, the [R] grammar can ensure consistency between the QoS resources in the access network and QoS resources between the MAG and LMA. 3.2.2. Discussion on QoS Request Handling with IEEE 802.11aa As a result, there needs to be a new higher layer protocol defined understood by the MN and AP that provides a common [O] defined understood [P] defined and understood [R] readability stream identifier to both ends. 3.2.3. LMA Initiated QoS De-allocation Request In this use case shown in Figure 4, the network initiates the release [O] In this use case shown in Figure 4, [P] either: In the use case shown in Figure 4, OR: In this use case, shown in Figure 4, [R] grammar of QoS resources. 4.3. Bandwidth In PMIPv6 QoS [1], services using a sending rate smaller than or equal to Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR) can in general assume that [O] can in general assume [P] can generally assume congestion related packet drops will not occur [8]. IEEE 802.11 TSPEC requests do not require all fields to be completed. [4] specifies a list of TSPEC parameters that are required in the specification. Peak Data Rate is not required in WMM, however for [O] Peak Data Rate is not required in WMM, however [P] Peak Data Rate is not required in WMM; however, [R] grammar (run on sentence) MNs and APs that are capable of specifying the Peak Data Rate, -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf