Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Steve,

1 comment and 1 question below.

Regards,

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Steve Donovan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 27 janvier 2016 18:20
À : A. Jean Mahoney; MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] Start of the WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02

Jean,

Thanks for the review.  See my comments below.

Regards,

Steve

On 1/4/16 3:14 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm good with the document, although I agree with Janet's feedback 
> that someone in ecrit should take a look at it, and with Lionel's 
> feedback on the security section.
SRD> I'll be addressing these comments in a separate email.
>
>
> Section 6, number 4:
>
> I assume the sender's decision to change the priority for the answer 
> is app-specific. Maybe add some words here and in Section 8 to that 
> effect.
SRD> I added the following to the end of the paragraph: "The priority
included by the answer sender is application specific."
[LM] I think that the comment is about the "decision" and not the "value".

>
> Section 8:
>
> Section 6 talks about nodes saving priority information found in the 
> request's DRMP AVP with the transaction state, and then checking it if 
> the AVP is absent in the Diameter answer. This info should be captured 
> in this section also.
SRD> The normative behavior is captured in this paragraph:

    When determining the priority to apply to answer messages, Diameter
    nodes MUST use the priority indicated in the DRMP AVP carried in the
    answer message, if it exists.  Otherwise, the Diameter node MUST use
    the priority indicated in the DRMP AVP of the associated request
    message.

Section 6 talks about one way to implement this.  I'm hesitant to include it as normative behavior.  As such, I added the following note:

       Note: One method to determine what priority to apply to an answer
       when there is no DRMP AVP in the answer message is to save the
       priority included in the request message in state associated with
       the Diameter transaction.

[LM] It is curious to see an expected behaviour described in section 6 and no related normative behaviour. Could you explain why you are reluctant to say that the priority value indicated in the request is saved?

>
> Nits:
>
> Section 5, 1st paragraph: s/discussed/discusses
>
> Section 5.1, 4th paragraph: s/job/jobs
>
> Section 5.4, 5th paragraph: s/command-code/command code
>
> Section 6, number 6: s/transaction/transaction state
I re-worded to the following:

"...By default the handler of the answer message uses the priority saved in the transaction's state.
>
> Section 7: Add a period to end of paragraph
>
> Section 11: s/Diamter/Diameter
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Jean
>
>
> On 12/23/15 4:26 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> As agreed during the Dime session at IETF94, a Working Group Last 
>> Call is asked on the following document:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02
>>
>> Please respond to this email to support the document and/or send 
>> comments by 2016-01-20.
>>
>> As this WGLC is initiated during the Xmas/end-of-year break, the WGLC 
>> period is extended to 4 weeks. For reviewer of the document, don't 
>> forget to state if you are fine with the document even if there is no 
>> comment. It is important for evaluating the quality of the document 
>> and gauge the WG consensus.
>>
>> In addition, following the strategy for promoting compliance with the 
>> IPR disclosure rules (RFC6702), the chairs would like to check 
>> whether there are claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the 
>> document that need to be disclosed. Therefore, the following 
>> questions are addressed to the WG and Especially Authors and 
>> Contributors of the draft:
>>
>> * Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to 
>> draft-ietf-dime-drmp-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in 
>> compliance with IETF IPR rules?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 
>> for more details.)
>>
>> * If you are a document author or listed contributor on this 
>> document, please reply to this email message regardless of whether or 
>> not you are personally aware of any relevant IPR.  We might not be 
>> able to advance this document to the next stage until we have 
>> received a reply from each author and listed contributor.
>>
>> * If you are on the DIME WG email list but are not an author or 
>> listed contributor for this document, you are reminded of your 
>> opportunity for a voluntary IPR disclosure under BCP 79.  Please do 
>> not reply  unless you want to make such a voluntary disclosure.
>>
>> Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at 
>> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr/file-disclosure>.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Lionel and Jouni
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>  Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete 
>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
>> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have 
>> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
>> this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is 
>> not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or 
>> falsified. Thank you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.