Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Thu, 16 June 2016 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E6212DBAF for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 cpIHsidopDKP for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.197.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B0E12DBAD for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-97-99-50-102.tx.res.rr.com ([97.99.50.102]:64860 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1bDeTj-003Lgk-KN; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:05:35 -0700
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <a9f32f7a-a802-5cd4-074f-e0f988cfdb54@gmail.com> <751e1a05-0f62-e21a-5a83-c11facfcf330@nostrum.com> <70dee2f0-ee26-aa35-723f-85f27ed2b1ec@usdonovans.com> <70f5d26b-2112-d5d5-5344-b64181af3f10@nostrum.com>
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Message-ID: <7da9f368-2192-c7f3-c97b-ee392a002dbe@usdonovans.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:04:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <70f5d26b-2112-d5d5-5344-b64181af3f10@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/0FMUnJ2GsDqdBDCkY_Tcnv8HacM>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:05:40 -0000

Jouni,
Lionel,

I have made changes based on Jean's review.  The WGLC period has expired 
on this.  Should I submit the new document or should I wait to see if 
there are other reviews pending?

Regards,

Steve

On 6/10/16 10:24 AM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for making the changes.
>
> Jean
>
> On 6/9/16 9:05 PM, Steve Donovan wrote:
>> Jean,
>>
>> Again, thanks for the detailed review.
>>
>> See my comments inline.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 6/8/16 4:04 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>> Hi Steve,
>>>
>>> Here's my feedback. I took a look at the errata (none) and Doc
>>> Shepherd write-up for RFC 7415 to evaluate the rate control algorithm.
>>> The write-up for RFC 7415 says that it has been incorporated into
>>> several simulators, so I think that it should be ok here, but I did
>>> not implement/test it myself.
>> SRD> Yes, we are riding on the coattails of the SIP work in this 
>> area. :-)
>>>
>>> Minor Issues:
>>>
>>> Section 5.1 para 5. The following sentence isn't clear to me:
>>>
>>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>>    include the specified rate in the abatement algorithm specific
>>>    portion of the reporting node rate OCS when sending a rate OLR.
>>>
>>> Perhaps update it to the following:
>>>
>>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>>    include the rate of its abatement algorithm in the OC-Maximum-Rate
>>>    AVP when sending a rate OLR.
>>>
>> SRD> Okay, change made.
>>>
>>> Section 5.4 para 1. Current:
>>>
>>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the reacting node
>>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a reaction node MUST indicate the
>>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>>    reporting node.
>>>
>>> Suggested:
>>>
>>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the *reporting* 
>>> node
>>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a *reacting* node MUST indicate the
>>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>>    reporting node.
>> SRD> Good catch.  Change made.
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 6.2. The CCF for the OC-OLR AVP shows an
>>> OC-Abatement-Algorithm AVP, which is not defined or used anywhere.
>>> The CCF also has OC-Source-ID, which should be SourceID.
>> SRD> Again, good catch.  OC-Abatement-Algorithm has been removed.
>> SourceID changes have also been made.
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 6.2.1 says that OC-Maximum-Rate is type Unsigned32 but Section
>>> 6.3 says that it's Unsigned64.
>> SRD> I've made it Unsigned32
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 8, IANA Considerations, needs to be filled in.
>> SRD> Oops.  Done as follows:
>>
>> 8.  IANA Consideration
>>
>> 8.1.  AVP codes
>>
>>    New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6. All
>>    AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and
>>    Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.
>>
>> 8.2.  New registries
>>
>>    There are no new IANA registries introduced by this document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nits:
>>>
>>> Section 1 para 2.    s/increase quickly/increases quickly
>>>
>>> Section 1 para 6.    s/rate based request/rate-based request
>>>
>>> Section 1 para 8.    s/RIA/RAI or just remove it since the area
>>>                      has been renamed
>> SRD> Removed
>>>
>>> Section 4 para 5. s/OC-Selected-Features/OC-Supported-Features
>>>
>>> Section 5.1 para 1.  Expand the first use of OCS and OLR.
>>>
>>> Section 5.1 para 2.  s/define/defined
>>>
>>> Section 6.3.         s/x.x/6.2
>>>
>>> Section 7.2 para 4.  s/cpu/CPU (2 instances)
>>>
>>> Section 7.2 para 7.  s/[draft-ietf-dime-ovli]/[RFC7683]
>>>
>>> Section 9 para 1.    s/based/base
>>>
>>> Section 11.2.        add the [Erramilli] reference
>> SRD> The above changes have been made.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Jean
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/25/16 12:43 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> This email starts the WGLC #1 for 
>>>> draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03.
>>>> Please, review the document, post your comments to the mailing list 
>>>> and
>>>> also insert them into the Issue Tracker with your proposed resolution.
>>>>
>>>> WGLC starts: 5/25/2016
>>>>        ends: 6/8/2016 EOB PDT
>>>>
>>>> - Jouni & Lionel
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DiME mailing list
>>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>