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

"A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mahoney@nostrum.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 E5EDB12B00B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham 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 WcC4dkyPkDra for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3710E12D0A8 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mutabilis-2.local ([108.19.241.180]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u58L4QPE003665 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:04:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mahoney@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [108.19.241.180] claimed to be mutabilis-2.local
To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
References: <a9f32f7a-a802-5cd4-074f-e0f988cfdb54@gmail.com>
From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <751e1a05-0f62-e21a-5a83-c11facfcf330@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:04:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a9f32f7a-a802-5cd4-074f-e0f988cfdb54@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/3dNamXzdsV-l_N9kY1CH8TiJ86U>
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:04:31 -0000

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.

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.


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.


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.


Section 6.2.1 says that OC-Maximum-Rate is type Unsigned32 but Section 
6.3 says that it's Unsigned64.


Section 8, IANA Considerations, needs to be filled in.



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

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


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