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

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

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

Regards,

Steve

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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime