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

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
>