Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03

"A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com> Fri, 10 June 2016 15:24 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 9C5C812D7B8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:24:26 -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 mywHvuVY6I5F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:24:19 -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 7A78912D0CF for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:24:15 -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 u5AFODVT095861 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:24:14 -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: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <a9f32f7a-a802-5cd4-074f-e0f988cfdb54@gmail.com> <751e1a05-0f62-e21a-5a83-c11facfcf330@nostrum.com> <70dee2f0-ee26-aa35-723f-85f27ed2b1ec@usdonovans.com>
From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <70f5d26b-2112-d5d5-5344-b64181af3f10@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:24:13 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <70dee2f0-ee26-aa35-723f-85f27ed2b1ec@usdonovans.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/yLno_3JgGUC-4Fn2wcvJJJD9uAc>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03
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: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:24:26 -0000

Hi Steve,

Thanks for making the changes.

Jean

On 6/9/16 9:05 PM, Steve Donovan wrote:
> Jean,
>
> Again, thanks for the detailed review.
>
> See my comments inline.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 6/8/16 4:04 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Here's my feedback. I took a look at the errata (none) and Doc
>> Shepherd write-up for RFC 7415 to evaluate the rate control algorithm.
>> The write-up for RFC 7415 says that it has been incorporated into
>> several simulators, so I think that it should be ok here, but I did
>> not implement/test it myself.
> SRD> Yes, we are riding on the coattails of the SIP work in this area. :-)
>>
>> Minor Issues:
>>
>> Section 5.1 para 5. The following sentence isn't clear to me:
>>
>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>    include the specified rate in the abatement algorithm specific
>>    portion of the reporting node rate OCS when sending a rate OLR.
>>
>> Perhaps update it to the following:
>>
>>    A reporting node that supports the rate abatement algorithm MUST
>>    include the rate of its abatement algorithm in the OC-Maximum-Rate
>>    AVP when sending a rate OLR.
>>
> SRD> Okay, change made.
>>
>> Section 5.4 para 1. Current:
>>
>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the reacting node
>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a reaction node MUST indicate the
>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>    reporting node.
>>
>> Suggested:
>>
>>    When receiving an answer message indicating that the *reporting* node
>>    has selected the rate algorithm, a *reacting* node MUST indicate the
>>    rate abatement algorithm in the reacting node OCS entry for the
>>    reporting node.
> SRD> Good catch.  Change made.
>>
>>
>> Section 6.2. The CCF for the OC-OLR AVP shows an
>> OC-Abatement-Algorithm AVP, which is not defined or used anywhere.
>> The CCF also has OC-Source-ID, which should be SourceID.
> SRD> Again, good catch.  OC-Abatement-Algorithm has been removed.
> SourceID changes have also been made.
>>
>>
>> Section 6.2.1 says that OC-Maximum-Rate is type Unsigned32 but Section
>> 6.3 says that it's Unsigned64.
> SRD> I've made it Unsigned32
>>
>>
>> Section 8, IANA Considerations, needs to be filled in.
> SRD> Oops.  Done as follows:
>
> 8.  IANA Consideration
>
> 8.1.  AVP codes
>
>    New AVPs defined by this specification are listed in Section 6. All
>    AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and
>    Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry.
>
> 8.2.  New registries
>
>    There are no new IANA registries introduced by this document.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nits:
>>
>> Section 1 para 2.    s/increase quickly/increases quickly
>>
>> Section 1 para 6.    s/rate based request/rate-based request
>>
>> Section 1 para 8.    s/RIA/RAI or just remove it since the area
>>                      has been renamed
> SRD> Removed
>>
>> Section 4 para 5.    s/OC-Selected-Features/OC-Supported-Features
>>
>> Section 5.1 para 1.  Expand the first use of OCS and OLR.
>>
>> Section 5.1 para 2.  s/define/defined
>>
>> Section 6.3.         s/x.x/6.2
>>
>> Section 7.2 para 4.  s/cpu/CPU (2 instances)
>>
>> Section 7.2 para 7.  s/[draft-ietf-dime-ovli]/[RFC7683]
>>
>> Section 9 para 1.    s/based/base
>>
>> Section 11.2.        add the [Erramilli] reference
> SRD> The above changes have been made.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> On 5/25/16 12:43 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> This email starts the WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-03.
>>> 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: 5/25/2016
>>>        ends: 6/8/2016 EOB PDT
>>>
>>> - Jouni & Lionel
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DiME mailing list
>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>