[Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01: 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-congestion-flow-attributes/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This mostly looks good. I have a few comments that are not show
stoppers:

substantive:

-- Abstract: I concur with Stephen that the abstract doesn't really
address the heart of the matter. (It also seems longer than needed.)

-- 5.2: I don’t see the Congestion-Treatment AVP actually used in the
example. At least if it is, it’s not called out. I think it would be
helpful to explicitly show it. Also, can you add a reference for
Excess-Treatment?

"If Excess-Treatment or Congestion-Treatment has occurred..."

Does this mean “if the conditions associated with Excess-Treatment or
Congestion-Treatment have occurred”, or “Excess-Treatment or
Congestion-Treatment have been sent in a Diameter message”?

--6, first sentence.

I’d like to see a little more “show your work" here. These AVPs carry new
kinds of content. That, in itself, might add new security considerations
(e.g. is the content privacy-sensitive, especially damaging if tampered
with, etc). Please consider adding a few sentences describing the new
content, and why you believe that content does or does not have new
security considerations. You kind of do that for ECN-IP-Codepoint and
Congestion-Treatment, but I don't see anything for the other two new
AVPs.

(I'm probably the other person that Stephen mentioned consider such
sentences as a red flag.)


Editorial:

-- Abstract: Please expand ECN and AVP on first mention (both in abstract
and in body.)

-- 3.2, first paragraph "In case..."

I suggest either "If..." or "In the case that..."

-- 5.1: There are several instances of "ECP-IP-Codepoint" that I assume
should be "ECN..."