Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)

Steve Donovan <> Thu, 24 January 2019 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E10E130F49 for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.119
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IVJAXATxiPel for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E34130F40 for <>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (port=54735 helo=SDmac.lan) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1gmoWF-00AdGW-Ss for; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:58 -0800
References: <>
From: Steve Donovan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 17:34:46 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------77E61070AEDDEA8E2F5ECE2A"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:35:01 -0000


Thanks for the comments.  I've updated the document per my replies below.



On 1/21/19 9:04 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The security considerations of rfc7683 have an own section on non-complaint
> nodes (section 10.3). While this is discussed in rfc7683, I think it is
> especially important for this document to remind the reader that there may be
> non-compliant nodes that may send with a higher than indicated rate. I would
> recommend to add one more statement to the security considerations section of
> this doc and potentially point the reader explicitly at section 10.3 of rfc7683.
SRD> I can add a statement if people feel strongly about it.  It does
seem a bit redundant as the first paragraph of the security
considerations section already has a reference back to the security
considerations section of rfc 7683.
> Two comments on normative language:
> 1) Section 5.6: "Any algorithm implemented MUST result in the
>       correct rate of traffic being sent to the reporting node."
> I would recommend to maybe change this to:
> "Any algorithm implemented MUST correctly limit the maximum
>  rate of traffic being sent to the reporting node."
> Otherwise I would think this is hard to implement in practice.
SRD> I like your wording better and have updated the document accordingly.
> 2) Section 7.2: "... the reporting node MUST periodically evaluate its overload
> state..." Not sure if the normative language is really appropriate here as this
> does not impact interoperability, nor can be checked. If at all, I guess I
> would recommend a "SHOULD" instead.
SRD> I agree in principle but this was carried over from RFC7415 upon
which the rate algorithm is based.  I suggest changing it to SHOULD
unless there are other objections.
> And two more editorial comments:
> 1) As section 7.3 only describes (in quite some detail) an example algorithm, I
> would rather have put this in an appendix. But I guess that's a matter of
> taste...
SRD> If I remember correctly, this was an appendix at one point and got
moved to a section.  I'd prefer to leave it as is given it is a matter
of taste.
> 2) I don't think section 8.2. is needed.
SRD> I'll remove it unless I hear any objections to the suggestion.
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list