Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7683 (5277)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 14 March 2018 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: aaa-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aaa-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1ED127337 for <aaa-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7svp63nsegh for <aaa-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01675124207 for <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 13:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19519; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521060283; x=1522269883; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=KDdlVGZOuYiX7FmN7LxdLx/ipo72vVQ8meWd3CxoW1E=; b=UE1fB/M1B/cPjGlK6PUqVoJa318rR8AnlA8ZF5icNQve19opMYZvcBrh GSkqaaOCUfwZGDLlKp+weNKlqw9fTwBdzhIDEmXbQMYA3xkvBAGu62h/U Uf2icJF/bnsl16pWzX7cshHJhtKWtCSQedgJX4FH4ZmxlYvUvd265QnPM 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CTAABliKla/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQ1cCiDUIoaco5RNIEWhySHcIUiFIF/ChgBCoRtAoNHNBgBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQJrKIUlAQEBAQMBASFLCxAJAhEDAQIoAwICIQYfCQgGDQYCAQGEfAMVD?= =?us-ascii?q?5ACnW6CJiaESYI3DYEwggyFLoNogVQogniBQYEZRAEBgS5YgmiCQiAEiB0WhT6?= =?us-ascii?q?BO4p3MQmNKoMvB4FjhDWCb4VUijWBFIYDgSweOIFSMxoIGxUZIYJDCYFxRY4xP?= =?us-ascii?q?zePZQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,307,1517875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="2610923"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2018 20:44:40 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2EKiedU011370; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:44:40 GMT
To: "john.zhao" <yuankui.zhao@gmail.com>
Cc: "aaa-doctors@ietf.org" <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>
References: <20180306104750.EF13EB80E97@rfc-editor.org> <68c132b6-52de-59d9-1d05-0bab97bb9212@cisco.com> <CADpucjW=fuxjMRS10Jt3A4No8Li0eVb5Q1S==Z9+yneCvQTFjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e438abb8-66b0-b3da-4a1d-7b69f776c42e@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:44:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADpucjW=fuxjMRS10Jt3A4No8Li0eVb5Q1S==Z9+yneCvQTFjA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------706CE33D5F3700D5D0DE07F3"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aaa-doctors/7jYLPm_q2rYdBLwaiJNbmbuwc4Y>
Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7683 (5277)
X-BeenThere: aaa-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: AAA Doctors E-mail List <aaa-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aaa-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:aaa-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:44:46 -0000

Dear all,

Any other views on the last two errata?

Regards, B.
> Hi Benoit,
>
>         The last word of "abatment" should be "abatement". In side of 
> the 'description' column, the "OLR_DEFAULT_ALGO"could be set but as 1 
> always should be stated. As any other features could be set but 0 or 1 
> in the future.
>
>         Just FYI.
>
>         Thanks,
> BR//John Zhao
>
> 2018-03-06 19:21 GMT+08:00 Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com 
> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>>:
>
>     Feedback on this one?
>
>     Regards, B.
>
>
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>     Subject: 	[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7683 (5277)
>     Date: 	Tue, 6 Mar 2018 02:47:50 -0800
>     From: 	RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>;
>     <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>     To: 	jouni.nospam@gmail.com <mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com>,
>     srdonovan@usdonovans.com <mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com>,
>     ben@nostrum.com <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>, lionel.morand@orange.com
>     <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>, bclaise@cisco.com
>     <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>, warren@kumari.net
>     <mailto:warren@kumari.net>, jouni.nospam@gmail.com
>     <mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, lionel.morand@orange.com
>     <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>
>     CC: 	lionel.morand@orange.com <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>,
>     dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>     <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>
>
>
>     The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7683,
>     "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance".
>
>     --------------------------------------
>     You may review the report below and at:
>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5277
>     <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5277>
>
>     --------------------------------------
>     Type: Technical
>     Reported by: Lionel Morand<lionel.morand@orange.com>; <mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>
>
>     Section: 7.2
>
>     Original Text
>     -------------
>     7.2.  OC-Feature-Vector AVP
>
>         The OC-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP Code 622) is of type Unsigned64 and
>         contains a 64-bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC
>         node.  The value of zero (0) is reserved.
>
>         The OC-Feature-Vector sub-AVP is used to announce the DOIC features
>         supported by the DOIC node, in the form of a flag-bits field in which
>         each bit announces one feature or capability supported by the node.
>         The absence of the OC-Feature-Vector AVP in request messages
>         indicates that only the default traffic abatement algorithm described
>         in this specification is supported.  The absence of the OC-Feature-
>         Vector AVP in answer messages indicates that the default traffic
>         abatement algorithm described in this specification is selected
>         (while other traffic abatement algorithms may be supported), and no
>         features other than abatement algorithms are supported.
>
>
>         The following capability is defined in this document:
>
>         OLR_DEFAULT_ALGO (0x0000000000000001)
>
>            When this flag is set by the a DOIC reacting node, it means that
>            the default traffic abatement (loss) algorithm is supported.  When
>            this flag is set by a DOIC reporting node, it means that the loss
>            algorithm will be used for requested overload abatement.
>
>     Corrected Text
>     --------------
>     7.2.  OC-Feature-Vector AVP
>
>         The OC-Feature-Vector AVP (AVP Code 622) is of type Unsigned64 and
>         contains a 64-bit flags field of announced capabilities of a DOIC
>         node.  The value of zero (0) is reserved.
>
>            Note: The value of zero (0) any DOIC node supports at least the
>                  Loss algorithm. Therefore, the OC-Feature-Vector AVP
>                  cannot be sent with no bit set.
>
>         The OC-Feature-Vector sub-AVP is used to announce the DOIC features
>         supported by the DOIC node, in the form of a flag-bits field in which
>         each bit announces one feature or capability supported by the node.
>         The absence of the OC-Feature-Vector AVP in request messages
>         indicates that only the default traffic abatement algorithm described
>         in this specification is supported.  The absence of the OC-Feature-
>         Vector AVP in answer messages indicates that the default traffic
>         abatement algorithm described in this specification is selected
>         (while other traffic abatement algorithms may be supported), and no
>         features other than abatement algorithms are supported.
>
>         The following capability is defined in this document:
>
>     +---+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
>     |bit|  Feature Name    |  Description                                 |
>     +---+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
>     | 0 | OLR_DEFAULT_ALGO |When set by a DOIC reacting node, it means    |
>     |   |                  |that the default traffic abatement (loss)     |
>     |   |                  |algorithm is supported. When set by a DOIC    |
>     |   |                  |reporting node, it means that the loss        |
>     |   |                  |algorithm will be used for requested overload |
>     |   |                  |abatment.                                     |
>     +---+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
>
>
>     Notes
>     -----
>     The OC-Feature-Vector AVP is a 64-bit flag field and not a set of values (one per feature). Using the hexadecimal notation, it gives the feeling that there is a unique value for the OC-Feature-Vector AVP per supported capability, hich is incorrect. It is only required to define the use of each bit. This errata report has an impact on the associated IANA regisrty.
>
>     Instructions:
>     -------------
>     This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>     use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>     rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>     can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
>     --------------------------------------
>     RFC7683 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli-10)
>     --------------------------------------
>     Title               : Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance
>     Publication Date    : October 2015
>     Author(s)           : J. Korhonen, Ed., S. Donovan, Ed., B. Campbell, L. Morand
>     Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>     Source              : Diameter Maintenance and Extensions
>     Area                : Operations and Management
>     Stream              : IETF
>     Verifying Party     : IESG
>     .
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
>     AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org <mailto:AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>
>
>