Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Jean,

Thanks for the review.

Please find my comments inline.

Regards,

Steve

On 6/1/16 6:11 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> I think the draft is in pretty good shape, but I have a few comments 
> (mostly nits) and I did get confused in Section 5.1.2 --
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Section 5.1.1
>
>   "When relaying a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the OC-
>    Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supuports the OC_PEER_REPORT
>    feature must remove the received SourceID AVP and replace it with a
>    SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity."
>
> Shouldn't "must" be "MUST"?
SRD> Yes.  I've made the change.
>
>
> Section 5.1.2
>
>   "When relaying an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
>    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from the OC-
>    Supported-Features AVP."
>
> And replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter 
> identity? Or does an answer with an OC-Supported-Features AVP that 
> does not have a SourceID AVP mean the peer is an agent? Section 5 
> doesn't cover how to interpret an OC-Supported-Features AVP without a 
> SourceID, only when a SourceID doesn't match the peer.
SRD> The next two paragraphs address when the SourceID is included.  
Maybe I need to change the next paragraph to the following:

From:

    When sending an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer
    is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.

To:

    When sending *or relaying* an answer message, a reporting node that 
supports the
    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST determine if the peer to which the answer
    is to be sent supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature.
>
>
> Section 5.1.2
>
>   "If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
>    node MUST indicate support for the feature in the Supported-Features
>    AVP."
>
> Should be "OC-Supported-Features".
SRD> Agreed.
>
>
> Section 6.1
>
> Should the AVP Code for OC-Supported-Features be 621 instead of TBD1? 
> (I wasn't sure if, when extending an AVP of type Grouped, you needed 
> to give the AVP a new AVP Code, and I couldn't find guidance in RFC 
> 6733 or RFC 7423) Also, AVP Code TBD1 is used for OC-Peer-Algo AVP in 
> Section 6.1.2 and for SourceID in Section 6.4. TBD2 is used for OC-OLR 
> in 6.2 (should it be 623?), SourceID in 6.3, and OC-Peer-Algo in 6.4.
SRD> Yes, good catch.  This was a cut and paste from before the DOIC AVP 
codes were assigned.  I've cleaned it up to have TBD1 apply to 
OC-Peer-Algo and TBD2 apply to SourceID.
>
>
>
> Section 6.2
>
>   "The overload report must also include the Diameter identity of the
>    agent that generated the report."
>
> Shouldn't "must" be "MUST"?
SRD> Yes.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Section 3 - s/"suited controlling traffic"/"suited to controlling 
> traffic"
SRD> This was fixed when rewording this section based on Maria Cruz's 
comments.
>
> Section 5.2.4 - s/"reporting nodes transaction state"/"reporting 
> node's transaction state"
>
> Section 6.1 - s/"handling by the agents peer."/"handling by the 
> agent's peer."
>
> Section 6.1.2 - s/"reused in for this AVP."/"reused for this AVP."
>
> Section 6.2 - s/non supporting/non-supporting
SRD> Changes made for the above.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jean
>
>
> On 5/23/16 2:12 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> This email starts the WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05.
>> Please, review the document, post your comments to the mailing list and
>> also insert them into the Issue Tracker with your proposed resolution.
>>
>> WGLC starts: 5/23/2016
>>        ends: 6/6/2016 EOB PDT
>>
>> - Jouni & Lionel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime