Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07

Shucheng,

Thank you for your review.  Please see my comments inline.

Steve

On 3/2/17 12:54 AM, Shucheng LIU wrote:
> Reviewer: Shucheng LIU
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-load-07 as part of the Operational
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of
> improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that
> are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during
> the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> “This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load
>     information.  RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control
> in
>     Diameter.  This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to
>     send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded.
>     RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) solution
>     describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does
> not
>     currently include the ability to send load information.”
>
> My overall view of the document is 'Ready with nits' for publication.
>
>
> ** Technical **
> No.
>
>
> ** Editorial **
>
> *Section 4, page 4
>> That is, the OLR requests that the reacting node reduce the offered
> load…….
>
> s/reduce/reduces
SRD> Change made.
>
>
> * Section 4.1, page 5:
>
>> The fundamental difference is that an overload report requires that
> reduction.
>
> What does the second “that” refer to? It may change to “The
> fundamental difference is that an overload report requires the
> reduction of offered load”or so.
SRD> Change made.
>
> * Section 5, page 10:
>
>> For the PEER load report, C follows the same procedure as A1 for
> determining if the Load report was received from the peer from which
> the report was sent and, when finding it does, stores the load
> information for use when making future routing decisions.
>
> This sentence may need to split for more readable purpose.
SRD> Change made
>
> * Section 5:
>
> Full name of *AVP* should be put into Abbreviations before using first
> time.
SRD> I've added AVP to the terminology section.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime