[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07
Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com> Thu, 23 February 2017 09:01 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21767129CF9; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:01:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.45.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148784049413.20240.15876379956092850264.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 01:01:34 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/B2cL_WvLx0QVathqw5aqkOyazXM>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-load.all@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:01:34 -0000
Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dime-load-07 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2017-02-23 IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-27 IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC Major issues: Minor issues: I understand that each node can calculate the load differently , the example in figure 8 demonstrate that the agent selection may be different if the agent aggregates load from the servers to calculate its load or just conveys his load, possibly even that each one of the agents will use different method. Why not mandate load calculation using aggregated weighted loads? Nits/editorial comments: 1. In section 5 paragraph 9 "The load report includes a value indicating the load of the sending node relative load of the sending node, " should be just "The load report includes a value indicating the relative load of the sending node," 2. In section 6.2 "weigth " 3. in the security consideration what about an endpoint in the middle changing the host load value causing a change in the routing decisions.