[Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-10: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 15 March 2017 19:54 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D439113172C; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, dime-chairs@ietf.org, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148960765886.14225.10614749426778815326.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:54:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/lgXpeWxCAQGFmfQClsYJCWOW2d4>
Subject: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 15 Mar 2017 19:54:19 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-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-agent-overload/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One rather important comment: While the security considerations section describes a possible attack, it does not say anything about how to handle this attack and the actually impact this attack might have. Please add more text! And then some mostly editorial high level comments: All in all, I had a rather hard time reading this document because it seems on the one hand sightly over-specified and over structured, while not giving very concrete guidance in some cases. E.g. in section 5.2.5; "In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that if the reporting node has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then abatement associated with the OCS entry MUST be ended in a controlled fashion." I don't think normative language is needed here because there is no impact of interoperation. But then is does't explain what "in a controlled fashion means". So I wouldn't even know how to implement that MUST correctly. Another example in section 4: " In this scenario, when doing abatement on the PEER report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the number of messages already throttled by the handling of the HOST/ REALM report abatement." How to take that into consideration? And why is this normative? Or here in section 5.2.3: "When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter peer from which the report was received. If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which the response message was received then the report was generated by a Diameter peer." Why don't you just say the following: "When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of peer it MUST determine that the SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which the response message was received." Also the indentation used is sometimes confusing. In some cases you should probably really use real listings with bullet points.
- [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Steve Donovan