Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE1212DC4A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GfB9ryWcagQI for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (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 684E212D63C for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id b13so32478213pat.0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4VxxhyO3JsXzORCHaKCJ/8X5tQ62EZT5fNaIDcYpiXw=; b=kF2fP7YRRQoRfZHg0o/FYI+m9QuoYHgF2UeXsSbbhfHKAd9lpx8rxXsMNlGEls59Xg etDkfWA+piTH112oocwZmpWsqOSvUwME2YxXzCyL+vak+NlbZZy7jTedtV7lv+gFCjX9 CS5yK5SdlrIhbYEx8naDueEu6LCzNi4by4KALufc6zlioMo6gFZhqGQ29X2WKuyjOv5s O09i51SMVP2tY3hSeaM0rI+fYHeBBvNr/cvyNaZdb0mIJwyhLjxrj3s9YdIyPB/1RldH tb+DcBFiscc1qwIWsQpv7swYsnG4Hu5INKitdAH8aDgiRUKBRoUdt6ktAbZBktyEVYOs 3UyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4VxxhyO3JsXzORCHaKCJ/8X5tQ62EZT5fNaIDcYpiXw=; b=Dj68mXrmYHoZnCwxlM2MyvLMJm3Br2SxoPDkiAx00m5HprPclIcsejR/I+p6/CTUCi ThpPP2QO1ngIS8Mdw1RDFfErL5D+CiWi+JSILqk5Vmg9xxibKPLbH2FGHeVUzb0JeJ/w PG3KSvNGOnMDjZCOUJ8Rz97Qh558LA2JPA2KQZjbzFwU6YJo9rEqyMmrSgQTWNLqpL2K 0jcj8OPXt/6arHHDogHSkry8IoRgmSBKGVWlj2Bi2WsKVLcqyvpOBN7fJe4N52y7UjY/ dPWXOFmBQaHM+Gr1nE7pbj0osInYU+fDbTd+VrGZa1CIWS3z8ZbUDH16L71am/jCvV5m RRRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKH0CEjkF1uDLwTGDbaxCACy1jCvkFUwK8ulq8c/5nzKPAIkgu0wF+fTCKkTJnr4Q==
X-Received: by 10.66.157.8 with SMTP id wi8mr5179658pab.21.1466205928803; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.16.65.15] ([216.31.219.19]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id fd8sm70926345pac.23.2016.06.17.16.25.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
References: <a9f32f7a-a802-5cd4-074f-e0f988cfdb54@gmail.com> <751e1a05-0f62-e21a-5a83-c11facfcf330@nostrum.com> <70dee2f0-ee26-aa35-723f-85f27ed2b1ec@usdonovans.com> <70f5d26b-2112-d5d5-5344-b64181af3f10@nostrum.com> <7da9f368-2192-c7f3-c97b-ee392a002dbe@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57f100c1-4ab5-8ecc-35ab-41f89c9bfb3e@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:25:22 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7da9f368-2192-c7f3-c97b-ee392a002dbe@usdonovans.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/ZA1YnR6XVagADkp2nKKB0znlR2E>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
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, 17 Jun 2016 23:25:32 -0000

Just upload a new revision.

- Jouni

6/16/2016, 2:04 PM, Steve Donovan kirjoitti:
> Jouni,
> Lionel,
>
> I have made changes based on Jean's review.  The WGLC period has expired
> on this.  Should I submit the new document or should I wait to see if
> there are other reviews pending?
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 6/10/16 10:24 AM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for making the changes.
>>
>> Jean
>>
>> On 6/9/16 9:05 PM, Steve Donovan wrote:
>>> Jean,
>>>
>>> Again, thanks for the detailed review.
>>>
>>> See my comments inline.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> On 6/8/16 4:04 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>
>>>> Here's my feedback. I took a look at the errata (none) and Doc
>>>> Shepherd write-up for RFC 7415 to evaluate the rate control algorithm.
>>>> The write-up for RFC 7415 says that it has been incorporated into
>>>> several simulators, so I think that it should be ok here, but I did
>>>> not implement/test it myself.
>>> SRD> Yes, we are riding on the coattails of the SIP work in this
>>> area. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Minor Issues:
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.1 para 5. The following sentence isn't clear to me:
>>>>
>>>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>>>    include the specified rate in the abatement algorithm specific
>>>>    portion of the reporting node rate OCS when sending a rate OLR.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps update it to the following:
>>>>
>>>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>>>    include the rate of its abatement algorithm in the OC-Maximum-Rate
>>>>    AVP when sending a rate OLR.
>>>>
>>> SRD> Okay, change made.
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.4 para 1. Current:
>>>>
>>>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the reacting node
>>>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a reaction node MUST indicate the
>>>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>>>    reporting node.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested:
>>>>
>>>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the *reporting*
>>>> node
>>>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a *reacting* node MUST indicate the
>>>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>>>    reporting node.
>>> SRD> Good catch.  Change made.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 6.2. The CCF for the OC-OLR AVP shows an
>>>> OC-Abatement-Algorithm AVP, which is not defined or used anywhere.
>>>> The CCF also has OC-Source-ID, which should be SourceID.
>>> SRD> Again, good catch.  OC-Abatement-Algorithm has been removed.
>>> SourceID changes have also been made.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 6.2.1 says that OC-Maximum-Rate is type Unsigned32 but Section
>>>> 6.3 says that it's Unsigned64.
>>> SRD> I've made it Unsigned32
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Section 8, IANA Considerations, needs to be filled in.
>>> SRD> Oops.  Done as follows:
>>>
>>> 8.  IANA Consideration
>>>
>>> 8.1.  AVP codes
>>>
>>>    New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6. All
>>>    AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and
>>>    Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.
>>>
>>> 8.2.  New registries
>>>
>>>    There are no new IANA registries introduced by this document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nits:
>>>>
>>>> Section 1 para 2.    s/increase quickly/increases quickly
>>>>
>>>> Section 1 para 6.    s/rate based request/rate-based request
>>>>
>>>> Section 1 para 8.    s/RIA/RAI or just remove it since the area
>>>>                      has been renamed
>>> SRD> Removed
>>>>
>>>> Section 4 para 5. s/OC-Selected-Features/OC-Supported-Features
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.1 para 1.  Expand the first use of OCS and OLR.
>>>>
>>>> Section 5.1 para 2.  s/define/defined
>>>>
>>>> Section 6.3.         s/x.x/6.2
>>>>
>>>> Section 7.2 para 4.  s/cpu/CPU (2 instances)
>>>>
>>>> Section 7.2 para 7.  s/[draft-ietf-dime-ovli]/[RFC7683]
>>>>
>>>> Section 9 para 1.    s/based/base
>>>>
>>>> Section 11.2.        add the [Erramilli] reference
>>> SRD> The above changes have been made.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/25/16 12:43 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> This email starts the WGLC #1 for
>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03.
>>>>> 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: 5/25/2016
>>>>>        ends: 6/8/2016 EOB PDT
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jouni & Lionel
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> DiME mailing list
>>>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>>
>