[Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 04 March 2016 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549FA1A1A75 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:06:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 vAKkjJUs1TNh for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2CD91A1A58 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA323BE57 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BFdEbuAUkoQQ for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40C6DBE25 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:06:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1457111201; bh=B09scsMlAEGPjI4MEdBB+VoYxXYJZTuvZ3n/+R7fGKE=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=sIvcOmGcW8fO0sTgM5BUCDHpHXhgH1rD+N/iScO83P/2+DkYouQ1NlbWx9+MONL9n Zdnpslt481jSiHdOvgUxxYLwg9oA/s4nlcWcljGopMZMRSwOQaVgflJfFusXWeP9NI fuq5ugFjY25FL3OgqjKSlnXTPbwCm3xGL8OISfTA=
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56D9C0A0.9060804@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:06:40 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000904030207010501010903"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/RyTiU-1NAeqfSBr2uvD0FLFDczc>
Subject: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:06:44 -0000
Hiya, I just have one question I'd like to ask the wg about before I start IETF LC. You don't say if priorities are intended to be modified after they have been set. In the security considerations you do say that this could be done maliciously, and you do say that priorities need to be dropped if received from a source not trusted for that, but you never say if it's considered ok or not for e.g. an agent to change a priority for some local policy reason. Don't you need to say that somewhere? (And apologies if you do say it somewhere and I missed it:-) There are some nits below, you can handled these before or after IETF LC, whichever is best. Cheers, S. - Section 5: URL and MME aren't expanded. Since you're just using it as an example, I'd say expanding this will help any reader who's not a 3gpp afficionado. - Section 8, "The priority marking scheme SHOULD NOT require the Diameter Agents to understand application specific AVPs." Isn't that a bogus use of 2119 language since we're not expressing requirements here? s/SHOULD NOT/does not/ would seem better. - Section 8, People will ask "why default to 10?" I recall the WG discussed this but iirc mostly didn't care too much but it might be nice to justify 10 if there's a way to do it that doesn't amount to "just because" :-) - Section 8, The "When setting and using..." paragraphs are quite verbose. It'd be no harm to make that shorter, e.g. by just saying: "For all integers x,y in [0,15] treat PRIORITY_<x> as lower priority than PRIOIRTY_<y> when y<x" You could do something similar in 9.1. I-D nits: == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' == Unused Reference: 'RFC4412'
- [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-03 Stephen Farrell