[Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-load-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 15 March 2017 20:27 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C5B13182C; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-load@ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, dime-chairs@ietf.org, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148960967368.14169.15606031033957049654.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:27:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/8ZOrQG6BMTooYU7Et9kPlxXqN8o>
Subject: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-load-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 15 Mar 2017 20:27:54 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dime-load-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-load/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More or less editorial comments: 1) These two MUSTs are actually hard to "ensure" and should probably be SHOULDs or lower case musts: sec 6.1.1: "A Diameter endpoint that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST include a Load report of type HOST in sufficient answer messages to ensure that all consumers of the load information receive timely updates." sec 6.1.2: "A Diameter Agent that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST include a PEER Load report in sufficient answer messages to ensure that all users of the load information receive timely updates." 2) This part also seems hard to realize (in sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2): "The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the available load independently of the weight of each server, in order to accurately compare LOAD values from different nodes. Any specific LOAD value needs to identify the same amount of available capacity, regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value. The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this requirement is an implementation decision." 3) I don't think you can require this for all diameter nodes (as they might not implement this extension): "A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process Load reports of type HOST and of type PEER" Just remove the sentence or at least don't use normative language. Side note: This MUST as well as the ones above are like saying "A node that implements/complies to this spec MUST implement this spec". It not really necessary to say this.
- [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Steve Donovan