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

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Thu, 24 January 2019 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 6E10E130F49 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.119
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IVJAXATxiPel for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E34130F40 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [97.99.21.33] (port=54735 helo=SDmac.lan) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1gmoWF-00AdGW-Ss for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:34:58 -0800
To: dime@ietf.org
References: <154808306002.8052.6002254450365375868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Message-ID: <932f60b6-6f7f-be0e-0c80-4c6d98777046@usdonovans.com>
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: <154808306002.8052.6002254450365375868.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
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 - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/eT8WNSQ-R4ifbacAZt9xDtonGms>
Subject: Re: [Dime] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-?= =?utf-8?q?ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:35:01 -0000

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
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime