Re: [Dime] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10
Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Thu, 24 January 2019 23:42 UTC
Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 3EEE21311F9 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:42:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 9-thXfw8xdrI for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDC32131215 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [97.99.21.33] (port=54784 helo=SDmac.lan) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1gmodI-00Ahd2-Co for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:42:15 -0800
To: dime@ietf.org
References: <154810458138.8188.8411786024206076306@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Message-ID: <71b3d38a-ac90-8ac7-0aa3-8a6c83d37534@usdonovans.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:42:03 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <154810458138.8188.8411786024206076306@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0EB645FECEC4AC41C06D9EEC"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/I2_hQndIqd2K7fzgXATxBAoi-RQ>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:42:17 -0000
Susan, Thank you for your review and comments. Please see my responses inline. Regards, Steve On 1/21/19 3:03 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > Reviewer: Susan Hares > Review result: Ready > > Steve and Eric: > > I have reveiwed this document as part of the operational directorate (ops-dir) > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being process by the IESG for > operational aspects. These comments are to aid the authors and the NM/OPS Area > Directors. The document editors and the WG chairs hsould treat these comments > as any other last call comments. > > Status: ready, with 2 operator questions and 1 yang question. The question > are just things to think about for the authors and ADS. > > Questions: > > The documentis readable and aligns with RFC7683 and > draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload. The language in this document also aligns > with language in the SIP Overload Control (SOC) document [RFC7415]. > > As I am not familar with current DIAMETER deployments, i've got a few > operational questions for the authors to consider: > > 1) If a operator where deploying this new algorithm, > what type of deployment considerations would > be necessary? Should certain topologies > of Diameter deployments utilize certain > overload algorithms? > > 2) What failure modes will the operator see > in the current overload abatement that > would encourage the operator to > spend the effort to go to this new DOIC > rate limit? > > As a researcher and implementer, sections 1 and 7 were sufficient > to answer these questions. However, I would ask the authors, > WG chairs, and OPS/NM ADs to determine if these are sufficient > for the normal operators. SRD> We had multiple operators involved in the development of this draft, in fact, one of the authors works for an operator. As such, I'm confident that their concerns have been addressed. > > Question 3: Just for my own understanding, > is there a plan to control DIAMETER protocols with YANG > modules? SRD> Not to my knowledge. > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-dime… Susan Hares
- Re: [Dime] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Steve Donovan