Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Mirja and all for the discussion.

Authors - if you're ready, please do go ahead now and update
the draft based on all the discussion to date and we can then
check back with the various ADs who've commented. (I think
Alexey said he'd suggest a bit of text to address Mirja's
concern, so please do check with him as you prepare the
revision.)

Cheers,
S.

On 11/05/16 18:34, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: 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-drmp/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I still think this part needs further clarification mostly regarding
> applicability and maybe a warning as it could lead to starvation of
> requests that do not define a priority, e.g. because there are not
> supporting it (yet) while effectively having a higher priortiy than the
> requests that they get starved by:
> "When using DRMP priority information, Diameter nodes MUST use the
>    default priority for transactions that do not have priority specified
>    in a DRMP AVP."
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>