Re: [Dime] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, David!

On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:40 AM, "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
> noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version.  It's ready for publication as
> an Informational RFC.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:50 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team ([e-mail]); [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
>> 
>> Hi David,
>> 
>> We agree on all your points, and will make the updates in the next version,
>> pending shepherd instructions.  
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Ben.
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Eric,
>>> 
>>> This looks good - comments follow ...
>>> 
>>>>> a) I assume that overload control development work will derive more
>> specific
>>>>> security requirements - e.g., as REQ 27 is stated at a rather high level.
>>>>> The discussion in security considerations section seems reasonable.
>>>> 
>>>> We agree with this.  The thinking here was that we didn't want to specify this
>>>> in a way that would be specific to a particular type of mechanism.  It might
>>>> not hurt to state that assumption, either as a note on Req 27 or in the sec
>>>> considerations.
>>> 
>>> That would be good to add as a note on REQ 27.
>>> 
>>>> The intent was very much as you say, where requirements on individual node
>>>> capabilities are hoped to result in better overall system behaviors. There are
>>>> also some requirements that are stated more at the system level (e.g. 7 and
>>>> 17.) Also the text in section 2.2 that discusses Figure 5 talks about how
>>>> insufficient server capacity at a cluster of servers behind a Diameter agent
>>>> can be treated as if the agent itself was overloaded.
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, any mechanism we design will have to focus on actions of
>>>> individual nodes, so the numbered requirements tend to focus on that. I'm not
>>>> sure where to change the balance here--do you have specific suggestions?
>>> 
>>> I noted this as editorial rather than a minor issue, as I was mostly concerned
>>> that the actual design work will be informed by a sufficient architectural "clue"
>>> that the goal is "better overall system behaviors", which your response indicates
>>> will definitely be the case ;-).
>>> 
>>> Rather than edit individual requirements, how about adding the following sentence
>>> immediately following the introductory sentence in Section 7?:
>>> 
>>> 	These requirements are stated primarily in terms of individual node
>>> 	behavior to inform the design of the improved mechanism;
>>> 	that design effort should keep in mind that the overall goal is
>>> 	improved overall system behavior across all the nodes involved,
>>> 	not just improved behavior from specific individual nodes.
>>> 
>>>>> This inadequacy may, in turn, contribute to broader congestion collapse
>>>>> 
>>>>> "collapse" is not the right word here - I suggest "issues", "impacts",
>>>>> "effects" or "problems".
>>>> 
>>>> We are fine with any of those alternatives.  How about impacts.
>>> 
>>> That's fine.  FWIW, "congestion collapse" has a specific (rather severe)
>>> meaning over in the Transport Area, and that meaning was not intended here.
>>> 
>>>> 23.843 is the least stable reference.  I don't have any issue with pointing
>>>> that out.  The part of it we are referencing is historical front matter
>>>> though.
>>> 
>>> I'd note the reference as work in progress, and put the statement about stable
>>> front matter (historical is a bad work to use here) in the body of the draft
>>> that cites the reference.
>>> 
>>>> I tried the web and downloaded versions of 2.12.17 and was not able to get the
>>>> warnings you saw (about the references).  What did it say?
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase :-).  The idnits confusion
>>> manifested right at the top of the output, where everyone ignores it ...
>>> 
>>>  Attempted to download rfc272 state...
>>>  Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it.
>>> 
>>> You didn't reference RFC 272, so that output's apparently courtesy of idnits
>>> misinterpreting this reference:
>>> 
>>> 1195	   [TS29.272]
>>> 1196	              3GPP, "Evolved Packet System (EPS); Mobility Management
>>> 1197	              Entity (MME) and Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) related
>>> 1198	              interfaces based on Diameter protocol", TS 29.272 11.4.0,
>>> 1199	              September 2012.
>>> 
>>> I was amused :-).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --David
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Eric McMurry [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:06 PM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; General Area Review Team ([e-mail]);
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
>>>> 
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for the review.  Your time and comments are appreciated!
>>>> 
>>>> comments/questions inline.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Eric
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:18 , "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>>> 
>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>>>> you may receive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Document: draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
>>>>> Reviewer: David L. Black
>>>>> Review Date: August 17, 2013
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: August 16, 2013
>>>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
>>>>> fixed before publication.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This draft describes scenarios in which Diameter overload can occur and
>> provides
>>>>> requirements for development of new overload control functionality in
>> Diameter.
>>>>> It is well written, and the inclusion of scenarios in which overload can
>> occur,
>>>>> both in terms of the relationships among types of Diameter nodes and
>> actual mobile
>>>>> network experience is very helpful.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I apologize for this review being a day late, as I've been on vacation for
>> most
>>>>> of this draft's IETF Last Call period.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Major issues: (none)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Minor issues: (none)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The following two comments could be minor issues, but I'm going to treat
>> them
>>>>> as editorial, as I expect that they will be addressed in development of
>> the
>>>>> actual overload functionality:
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) I assume that overload control development work will derive more
>> specific
>>>>> security requirements - e.g., as REQ 27 is stated at a rather high level.
>>>>> The discussion in security considerations section seems reasonable.
>>>> 
>>>> We agree with this.  The thinking here was that we didn't want to specify
>> this
>>>> in a way that would be specific to a particular type of mechanism.  It
>> might
>>>> not hurt to state that assumption, either as a note on Req 27 or in the sec
>>>> considerations.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> b) The draft, and especially its requirements in Section 7 are strongly
>>>>> focused on individual Diameter node overload.  That's necessary, but
>> overload
>>>>> conditions can be broader, affecting an entire service or application, or
>>>>> multiple instances of either/both, even if not every individual Diameter
>> node
>>>>> involved is overloaded.  A number of the requirements, starting with REQ
>> 22
>>>>> could be generalized to cover broader overload conditions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This (b) has implications for other requirements, e.g., REQ 13 should also
>> be
>>>>> generalized beyond a single node to avoid increased traffic in an overload
>>>>> situation, even from a node that is not overloaded by itself.  There are
>> limits
>>>>> on what is reasonable here, as the desired overload functionality is
>> TCP/SCTP-
>>>>> like reaction to congestion where individual actions taken by nodes based
>> on
>>>>> the information they have (which is not the complete state of the network)
>>>>> results in an overall reduction of load.
>>>> 
>>>> The intent was very much as you say, where requirements on individual node
>>>> capabilities are hoped to result in better overall system behaviors. There
>> are
>>>> also some requirements that are stated more at the system level (e.g. 7 and
>>>> 17.) Also the text in section 2.2 that discusses Figure 5 talks about how
>>>> insufficient server capacity at a cluster of servers behind a Diameter
>> agent
>>>> can be treated as if the agent itself was overloaded.
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, any mechanism we design will have to focus on actions of
>>>> individual nodes, so the numbered requirements tend to focus on that. I'm
>> not
>>>> sure where to change the balance here--do you have specific suggestions?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 1.2, 2nd paragraph:
>>>>> 
>>>>> as network congestion, network congestion can reduce a Diameter nodes
>>>>> 
>>>>> "nodes" -> "node's"
>>>> 
>>>> good catch.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 5, 1st paragraph:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This inadequacy may, in turn, contribute to broader congestion collapse
>>>>> 
>>>>> "collapse" is not the right word here - I suggest "issues", "impacts",
>>>>> "effects" or "problems".
>>>> 
>>>> We are fine with any of those alternatives.  How about impacts.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 7
>>>>> 
>>>>> The long enumerated list of requirements is not an easy read.  It would be
>>>>> better if these could somehow be grouped by functional category, e.g.,
>>>>> security, transport interactions, operational/administrative, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> agree.  It is actually in sections in the XML (denoted by comments), we
>> just
>>>> did not promote those to visible sections in the txt.  I recall there being
>>>> some issue with xml2rfc and numbering, but now that the numbers are set,
>> this
>>>> would not be hard to do.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> idnits 2.12.17 noticed the non-standard RFC 2119 boilerplate - this is
>> fine,
>>>>> as the boilerplate has been appropriately modified for this draft that
>>>>> expresses requirements (as opposed to a draft that specifies a protocol).
>>>>> 
>>>>> idnits 2.12.17 got confused by the 3GPP and GSMA Informative References.
>>>>> I assume that they're all sufficiently stable to be informative
>> references.
>>>>> However, [TR23.843] is a work in progress, and should be noted as such in
>>>>> its reference - is this needed for any of the other 3GPP or GSMA
>> references?
>>>> 
>>>> 23.843 is the least stable reference.  I don't have any issue with pointing
>>>> that out.  The part of it we are referencing is historical front matter
>>>> though.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I tried the web and downloaded versions of 2.12.17 and was not able to get
>> the
>>>> warnings you saw (about the references).  What did it say?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --David
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
>>>>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>>>>> [phone]             FAX: [phone]
>>>>> [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>