Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02

[<[e-mail]>]

Steve,

See below.

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Steve Donovan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 27 janvier 2016 18:57
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; A. Jean Mahoney; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02



On 1/27/16 11:34 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> 1 comment and 1 question below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lionel
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Steve Donovan [mailto:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mercredi 
> 27 janvier 2016 18:20 À : A. Jean Mahoney; MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; 
> [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on 
> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
>
> Jean,
>
> Thanks for the review.  See my comments below.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 1/4/16 3:14 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm good with the document, although I agree with Janet's feedback 
>> that someone in ecrit should take a look at it, and with Lionel's 
>> feedback on the security section.
> SRD> I'll be addressing these comments in a separate email.
>>
>> Section 6, number 4:
>>
>> I assume the sender's decision to change the priority for the answer 
>> is app-specific. Maybe add some words here and in Section 8 to that 
>> effect.
> SRD> I added the following to the end of the paragraph: "The priority
> included by the answer sender is application specific."
> [LM] I think that the comment is about the "decision" and not the "value".
SRD2> Yes, but the decision to be made it about the value.  Do you have
a suggestion for alternate wording?

[LM] I think that the first decision is to include a prioriity value in the answer... even if it is the same value. But I may be wrong.

>
>> Section 8:
>>
>> Section 6 talks about nodes saving priority information found in the 
>> request's DRMP AVP with the transaction state, and then checking it 
>> if the AVP is absent in the Diameter answer. This info should be 
>> captured in this section also.
> SRD> The normative behavior is captured in this paragraph:
>
>      When determining the priority to apply to answer messages, Diameter
>      nodes MUST use the priority indicated in the DRMP AVP carried in the
>      answer message, if it exists.  Otherwise, the Diameter node MUST use
>      the priority indicated in the DRMP AVP of the associated request
>      message.
>
> Section 6 talks about one way to implement this.  I'm hesitant to include it as normative behavior.  As such, I added the following note:
>
>         Note: One method to determine what priority to apply to an answer
>         when there is no DRMP AVP in the answer message is to save the
>         priority included in the request message in state associated with
>         the Diameter transaction.
>
> [LM] It is curious to see an expected behaviour described in section 6 and no related normative behaviour. Could you explain why you are reluctant to say that the priority value indicated in the request is saved?
SRD> Section 6 is non normative and, as such, only an example. 
Specifying this in the normative section would eliminate other methods of determining the value received in the request.  For instance, a stateless agent might choose to include the value in a Proxy-Info AVP.

[LM] Good point. Could be good to indicate both options in your example.

>
>> Nits:
>>
>> Section 5, 1st paragraph: s/discussed/discusses
>>
>> Section 5.1, 4th paragraph: s/job/jobs
>>
>> Section 5.4, 5th paragraph: s/command-code/command code
>>
>> Section 6, number 6: s/transaction/transaction state
> I re-worded to the following:
>
> "...By default the handler of the answer message uses the priority saved in the transaction's state.
>> Section 7: Add a period to end of paragraph
>>
>> Section 11: s/Diamter/Diameter
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/15 4:26 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> As agreed during the Dime session at IETF94, a Working Group Last 
>>> Call is asked on the following document:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
>>>
>>> Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send 
>>> comments by 2016-01-20.
>>>
>>> As this WGLC is initiated during the Xmas/end-of-year break, the 
>>> WGLC period is extended to 4 weeks. For reviewer of the document, 
>>> don't forget to state if you are fine with the document even if 
>>> there is no comment. It is important for evaluating the quality of 
>>> the document and gauge the WG consensus.
>>>
>>> In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with 
>>> the IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check 
>>> whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on 
>>> the document that need to be disclosed. Therefore, the following 
>>> questions are addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and 
>>> Contributors of the draft:
>>>
>>> * Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 
>>> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 
>>> compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 
>>> 5378 for more details.)
>>>
>>> * If you are a document author or listed contributor on this 
>>> document, please reply to this email message regardless of whether 
>>> or not you are personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not 
>>> be able to advance this document to the next stage until we have 
>>> received a reply from each author and listed contributor.
>>>
>>> * If you are on the DIME WG email list but are not an author or 
>>> listed contributor for this document, you are reminded of your 
>>> opportunity for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do 
>>> not reply  unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
>>>
>>> Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 
>>> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Lionel and Jouni
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> _ ____________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>   Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre 
>>> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
>>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le 
>>> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques 
>>> etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite 
>>> si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
>>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
>>> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
>>> this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange 
>>> is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or 
>>> falsified. Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list 
>>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.