Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06

The following is the resolution of Ben's issues that were not addressed 
directly in an email thread started by Ulrich.

Regards,

Steve

On 1/14/15 5:56 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> -- 5.2.1.4: "A reporting node MUST NOT update the abatement algorithm in an active OCS entry."
>
> I thought we agreed to remove that, and replace it with the note at the beginning of 5.1?
SRD> I have removed the paragraph.
>
> -- 5.3, 4th paragraph:
>
> As I mentioned in previous discussion, after re-reading the related text in 6733, it's no longer clear to me this works like we thought it did. That is, I think any attempt to make sub-AVPs mandatory risks causing errors in the enclosing Diameter transaction. I don't know how to solve this, other just disallowing mandatory sub-AVPs. (Jouni previously convinced me 6733 treatment of the m-bit in sub-avps worked like we wanted--perhaps he can re-convince me :-)
SRD>Given that Jouni successfully convinced Ben about the 6733 
treatment, I'm not planning to make any changes, as I'm assuming he can 
be just as successful the second time.
>
> -- 6.3, paragraph 2:
>
> This is stronger than the SHOULDs in the general behavior section (5.2.2)
SRD> Section 5.2.2 says:

    If the request matches an active OCS then the reacting node MUST use
    the overload abatement algorithm indicated in the OCS to determine if
    the request is to receive overload abatement treatment.

Section 6.3 says:

    When receiving an OC-OLR in an answer message where the algorithm
    indicated in the OC-Supported-Features AVP is the loss algorithm, the
    reacting node MUST apply abatement treatment to the requested
    percentage of request messages sent.

I don't see the issue.
>
> Paragraph 5:
>
> Is this redundant to the last paragraph of 5.2.2?
SRD> I don't see an issue.  One is general and the other specific to the 
loss algorithm.  They don't conflict.
>
> Editorial:
>
> -- section 2, "Diversion"
SRD> Changed
>
> repeated "for".
SRD> Changed
>
> -- section 3:
>
> I suggest adding a sentence that the same words that are not in all-caps are excepted from the 2119 interpretation.  (We have a few instances of lowercase "must", "should", etc. The uglier alternative would be to hunt down and kill all of them.)
SRD> Done. Section 3 now contains the following:

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

    RFC 2119 [RFC2119] interpretation does not apply for the above listed
    words when they are not used in all-caps format.

>
> -- 4.3, 4th paragraph from end
>
> s/ "... applying the overload abatement algorithm..." / "... apply the overload abatement algorithm..."
SRD> Done
>
> -- Figure 1:
>
> The boxes have caret characters in the top and bottom horizontal lines. Do those mean something?
SRD> I removed the carets.  I think they were just meant to be decorative.
>
> -- 6.3, 4th paragraph:
>
> This seems like a restatement of paragraph 2.
SRD> I removed the 4th paragraph.
>
>
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 9:28 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Thanks for the hard work on the -06 revision. Since the changes
>> from -05 to -06 were many, chairs decided to run another short
>> WGLC for the WG to verify all changes and discussions are
>> implemented correctly.
>>
>> This email starts a one week WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06. The
>> WGLC ends 20th Jan 2015 EOB (PST). Post your review comments and
>> concerns to the mailinglist. Also make use of the issue tracker
>> (remember to select "severity" as "in WG last call").
>>
>> Lionel & Jouni
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>