Re: [Dime] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

That all looks good, thanks!

Ben.

> On Jan 24, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Steve Donovan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> I've updated the document based on our comments.  See more below.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 12/21/18 5:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This is my AD evaluation for draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10. I previously reviewed version 8, however since some time has passed I reviewed this version “from scratch”.
>> 
>> In general the draft is in good shape. I think it’s ready for IETF Last Call, which I will request shortly. Please note the last call window will be extended due to the upcoming holidays.
>> 
>> I have a few minor comments that can be resolved along with any last call feedback.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
>> -------------------------------------
>> 
>> §4, paragraphs 2 and 3: Am I correct to assume that, as new DOIC algorithms get added, nodes could support both of these and something else? If so, then in paragraph 2 I suggest s/ “ support both the loss and rate based abatement algorithms”/ "support at least the loss and rate based abatement algorithms”
> SRD> No, only loss is required to be supported.  The statement is that, because loss is always required, supporting rate implies supporting loss and rate.  I don't think a change is required here.
>> 
>> ..... and in paragraph 3, I suggest adding something to the effect of “... and MAY indicate support for others.”
> SRD> I agree this is a good change.
>> 
>> (nit) §5.5, 2nd paragraph: "It is also possible for the reporting node to send overload
>> reports with the rate algorithm indicated when the reporting node
>> is not in an overloaded state.”
>> 
>> I suggest s/ “indicated when” / “indicated even when”
> SRD> Okay.
>> 
>> (nit) §5.6, first paragraph: The algorithm is detailed in 7.3.
> 
>> 
>> §7.3.1: "To apply abatement treatment to new Diameter requests at the rate
>> specified in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP value sent by the reporting node
>> to its reacting nodes, the reacting node MAY use the proposed default
>> algorithm for rate-based control or any other equivalent algorithm
>> that forward messages in conformance with the upper bound of 1/T
>> messages per second.”
>> 
>> This is redundant to similar normative text in §5.6. I suggest keeping just one (probably this one since it’s more precise) and use descriptive language for the other.
> SRD> Okay, I changed 5.6 to the following:
> 
>    When determining if abatement treatment should be applied to a
>    request being sent to a reporting node that has selected the rate
>    overload abatement algorithm, the reacting node can choose to
>    use the algorithm detailed in Section 7.
>> 
>> 
>> §9: Do the authors think that the rate algorithm might be more effective at DoS mitigation than the loss algorithm? If so, that might be worth a mention in the security considerations.
> SRD> Good suggestion.  I've added the following paragraph to the security section:
> 
>    In addition, the rate algorithm could be used to handle DoS attacks more effectively than the loss algorithm.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime