[Dime] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7BE130EC1; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M7o8JNZ7C2EW; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41965130EB8; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com []) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBLN6UwF056929 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:06:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545433592; bh=9Hbfk01kVJjjd58JxFUcQzdTXSg0wSGa50zdrmlX+wY=; h=From:Subject:Date:Cc:To; b=uqFbc4nPLY4jIWQ6IGs8lJfZ7/sTt5rx5xNRcE5+M/9HmKExRb1R1edkva1kxu4eG rJrZkQ1dN77uWJODoxl/cB3fixmaQYTl8Xg0/dGDYl8VMKXR8+GAART3uD4dWAu6Jw uV7S4CBgAhCnujI4HAwjRkzINCpTR7ErQT3AD0po=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [] claimed to be []
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D642995C-DB77-42DB-9D98-F0C32D507AF3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Message-Id: <C154637A-9E52-456B-9D33-50762A4525DF@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:06:28 -0600
Cc: dime@ietf.org
To: draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.all@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/VGqNezZ8NoY_tJPd5YRI7uGH4P4>
Subject: [Dime] AD Evaluation 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: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:06:38 -0000


This is my AD evaluation for draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10. I previously reviewed version 8, however since some time has passed I reviewed this version “from scratch”.

In general the draft is in good shape. I think it’s ready for IETF Last Call, which I will request shortly. Please note the last call window will be extended due to the upcoming holidays.

I have a few minor comments that can be resolved along with any last call feedback.




§4, paragraphs 2 and 3: Am I correct to assume that, as new DOIC algorithms get added, nodes could support both of these and something else? If so, then in paragraph 2 I suggest s/ “ support both the loss and rate based abatement algorithms”/ "support at least the loss and rate based abatement algorithms”

... and in paragraph 3, I suggest adding something to the effect of “... and MAY indicate support for others.”

(nit) §5.5, 2nd paragraph: "It is also possible for the reporting node to send overload
reports with the rate algorithm indicated when the reporting node
is not in an overloaded state.”

I suggest s/ “indicated when” / “indicated even when”

(nit) §5.6, first paragraph: The algorithm is detailed in 7.3.

§7.3.1: "To apply abatement treatment to new Diameter requests at the rate
specified in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP value sent by the reporting node
to its reacting nodes, the reacting node MAY use the proposed default
algorithm for rate-based control or any other equivalent algorithm
that forward messages in conformance with the upper bound of 1/T
messages per second.”

This is redundant to similar normative text in §5.6. I suggest keeping just one (probably this one since it’s more precise) and use descriptive language for the other.

§9: Do the authors think that the rate algorithm might be more effective at DoS mitigation than the loss algorithm? If so, that might be worth a mention in the security considerations.