[Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 03 May 2016 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 D1CE312D91B; Tue, 3 May 2016 14:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160503213139.8362.8871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 14:31:39 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/9f1zFBN8tKd_EKzhk1Jk65cfMJw>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 03 May 2016 21:31:40 -0000
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: Discuss 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-drmp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Given the two key security threats identified in Section 11 -- that authorized nodes can issue requests with artificially high priority in order to get better treatment, and that unauthorized intermediaries can modify the priorities that senders set -- I don't see how it is legitimate to claim that either 5.1 or 5.2 are appropriate use cases for DRMP. The spec seems to assume that this mechanism will only be used in scenarios where nodes and agents have some out-of-band trust relationship established with each other (the shepherd write-up talks about a "trusted environment"), but that is certainly not the case in many disaster and emergency scenarios. If that really is a limitation on the scope of applicability of this mechanism, that should be stated in the document, and those use cases should either be removed or modified to explain the limitations on their applicability. (2) Section 6 says: "The mechanism for how the agent determines which requests are throttled is implementation dependent and is outside the scope of this document." How is a node supposed to determine how to set its priorities if each agent makes implementation-specific decisions about what those priorities mean? I understood the document to be saying that Diameter applications would have to define what he priority levels mean within their own contexts, but then I would have expected the interpretation of priorities amongst all nodes and agents implementing the same application to be the same. (3) Section 8 says: "Diameter nodes SHOULD use the PRIORITY_10 priority as this default value." If the determination of the priority schemes are all application-specific, how is it appropriate for this spec to define what the default priority should be for all applications? Shouldn't applications specify their own defaults? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 11 says: "DRMP gives Diameter nodes the ability to influence which requests are throttled during overload scenarios." But the information is not limited to use during overload scenarios, and the spec specifically allows its use for prioritized routing in absence of overload. This should be stated here too.
- [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Trottin, Jean-Jacques (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Stephen Farrell
- [Dime] RE : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Gunn, Janet P
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan