Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05

"A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com> Wed, 01 June 2016 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mahoney@nostrum.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 58DAD12D147 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham 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 8NrqOM7nnld0 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 74C7312B05D for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mutabilis-2.local ([108.19.241.180]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u51NBKo9009000 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:11:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from mahoney@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [108.19.241.180] claimed to be mutabilis-2.local
To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "Lionel.morand@orange.com" <Lionel.morand@orange.com>, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
References: <5bba2470-8921-f7db-0f1b-aad280eae684@gmail.com>
From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <9cf5ab38-2e42-c747-98ba-52b61aa959f8@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:11:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5bba2470-8921-f7db-0f1b-aad280eae684@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/jmWSK6nGMgqd63JqRUO3TpNrJms>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:11:25 -0000

Hi Steve,

I think the draft is in pretty good shape, but I have a few comments 
(mostly nits) and I did get confused in Section 5.1.2 --

Minor issues:

Section 5.1.1

   "When relaying a request that includes a SourceID AVP in the OC-
    Supported-Features AVP, a DOIC node that supuports the OC_PEER_REPORT
    feature must remove the received SourceID AVP and replace it with a
    SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity."

Shouldn't "must" be "MUST"?


Section 5.1.2

   "When relaying an answer message, a reporting node that supports the
    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST strip any SourceID AVP from the OC-
    Supported-Features AVP."

And replace it with a SourceID AVP containing its own Diameter identity? 
Or does an answer with an OC-Supported-Features AVP that does not have a 
SourceID AVP mean the peer is an agent? Section 5 doesn't cover how to 
interpret an OC-Supported-Features AVP without a SourceID, only when a 
SourceID doesn't match the peer.


Section 5.1.2

   "If the peer supports the OC_PEER_REPORT feature then the reporting
    node MUST indicate support for the feature in the Supported-Features
    AVP."

Should be "OC-Supported-Features".


Section 6.1

Should the AVP Code for OC-Supported-Features be 621 instead of TBD1? (I 
wasn't sure if, when extending an AVP of type Grouped, you needed to 
give the AVP a new AVP Code, and I couldn't find guidance in RFC 6733 or 
RFC 7423) Also, AVP Code TBD1 is used for OC-Peer-Algo AVP in Section 
6.1.2 and for SourceID in Section 6.4. TBD2 is used for OC-OLR in 6.2 
(should it be 623?), SourceID in 6.3, and OC-Peer-Algo in 6.4.



Section 6.2

   "The overload report must also include the Diameter identity of the
    agent that generated the report."

Shouldn't "must" be "MUST"?


Nits:

Section 3 - s/"suited controlling traffic"/"suited to controlling traffic"

Section 5.2.4 - s/"reporting nodes transaction state"/"reporting node's 
transaction state"

Section 6.1 - s/"handling by the agents peer."/"handling by the agent's 
peer."

Section 6.1.2 - s/"reused in for this AVP."/"reused for this AVP."

Section 6.2 - s/non supporting/non-supporting


Thanks!

Jean


On 5/23/16 2:12 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This email starts the WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05.
> 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: 5/23/2016
>        ends: 6/6/2016 EOB PDT
>
> - Jouni & Lionel
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime