Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11
Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 27 August 2013 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587A711E81C8; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.296
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4EDIgc1VYY2; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x230.google.com (mail-ee0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F86511E81BC; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l10so2466690eei.7 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=znDVBMXGyKlkBXQRv8j2FXcQjkoReAui0jeiK0GTZ1M=; b=vOHw3z52ZF6zHZu0Me+fyZ/LOFEfpOE5HpM/ahzdjlZ+0dPUC+pLL0FhpXagDGoPhZ x1mp+z96Gs3LWQ/XZ3WL7opAwzPDfgaP2AMjHV+CYWdX4jmzgCnH1n+97K3O98WB+8Ue 5pQxu59VTYGtm3CraQXwkKiNDGvfYG4ULpvYz3EUa1wFGBFhexXjUdIGFr5fhqiwf2ez SadYrnhaNUIwU0KWggWCTcyh+K8N9eYVab0U0/eYm2/TN/G9g0Z3YrNlcZEC7zOjkRu/ QSw+ZVtmBX0pbppK8JeZyh6b/sGVYJONAAb0gJfaZ0PhA05+KwjCpt5iZrp7a+OAQMZG 1nGw==
X-Received: by 10.15.83.2 with SMTP id b2mr37325764eez.28.1377635211120; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:fc5e:23e4:7126:ddab? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:fc5e:23e4:7126:ddab]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h52sm31777998eez.3.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C675453@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:26:45 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26019E7F-3973-460A-94F1-C7076FD80D0F@gmail.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C675453@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric McMurry <emcmurry@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:26:55 -0000
Great. Thanks! - Jouni On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:40 PM, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> wrote: > The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments > noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as > an Informational RFC. > > Thanks, > --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:50 PM >> To: Black, David >> Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); ietf@ietf.org; >> dime@ietf.org; bclaise@cisco.com >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10 >> >> Hi David, >> >> We agree on all your points, and will make the updates in the next version, >> pending shepherd instructions. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> This looks good - comments follow ... >>> >>>>> a) I assume that overload control development work will derive more >> specific >>>>> security requirements - e.g., as REQ 27 is stated at a rather high level. >>>>> The discussion in security considerations section seems reasonable. >>>> >>>> We agree with this. The thinking here was that we didn't want to specify this >>>> in a way that would be specific to a particular type of mechanism. It might >>>> not hurt to state that assumption, either as a note on Req 27 or in the sec >>>> considerations. >>> >>> That would be good to add as a note on REQ 27. >>> >>>> The intent was very much as you say, where requirements on individual node >>>> capabilities are hoped to result in better overall system behaviors. There are >>>> also some requirements that are stated more at the system level (e.g. 7 and >>>> 17.) Also the text in section 2.2 that discusses Figure 5 talks about how >>>> insufficient server capacity at a cluster of servers behind a Diameter agent >>>> can be treated as if the agent itself was overloaded. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, any mechanism we design will have to focus on actions of >>>> individual nodes, so the numbered requirements tend to focus on that. I'm not >>>> sure where to change the balance here--do you have specific suggestions? >>> >>> I noted this as editorial rather than a minor issue, as I was mostly concerned >>> that the actual design work will be informed by a sufficient architectural "clue" >>> that the goal is "better overall system behaviors", which your response indicates >>> will definitely be the case ;-). >>> >>> Rather than edit individual requirements, how about adding the following sentence >>> immediately following the introductory sentence in Section 7?: >>> >>> These requirements are stated primarily in terms of individual node >>> behavior to inform the design of the improved mechanism; >>> that design effort should keep in mind that the overall goal is >>> improved overall system behavior across all the nodes involved, >>> not just improved behavior from specific individual nodes. >>> >>>>> This inadequacy may, in turn, contribute to broader congestion collapse >>>>> >>>>> "collapse" is not the right word here - I suggest "issues", "impacts", >>>>> "effects" or "problems". >>>> >>>> We are fine with any of those alternatives. How about impacts. >>> >>> That's fine. FWIW, "congestion collapse" has a specific (rather severe) >>> meaning over in the Transport Area, and that meaning was not intended here. >>> >>>> 23.843 is the least stable reference. I don't have any issue with pointing >>>> that out. The part of it we are referencing is historical front matter >>>> though. >>> >>> I'd note the reference as work in progress, and put the statement about stable >>> front matter (historical is a bad work to use here) in the body of the draft >>> that cites the reference. >>> >>>> I tried the web and downloaded versions of 2.12.17 and was not able to get the >>>> warnings you saw (about the references). What did it say? >>> >>> Sorry, I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase :-). The idnits confusion >>> manifested right at the top of the output, where everyone ignores it ... >>> >>> Attempted to download rfc272 state... >>> Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. >>> >>> You didn't reference RFC 272, so that output's apparently courtesy of idnits >>> misinterpreting this reference: >>> >>> 1195 [TS29.272] >>> 1196 3GPP, "Evolved Packet System (EPS); Mobility Management >>> 1197 Entity (MME) and Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) related >>> 1198 interfaces based on Diameter protocol", TS 29.272 11.4.0, >>> 1199 September 2012. >>> >>> I was amused :-). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> --David >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Eric McMurry [mailto:emcmurry@computer.org] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:06 PM >>>> To: Black, David >>>> Cc: ben@nostrum.com; General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); >>>> ietf@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; bclaise@cisco.com >>>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10 >>>> >>>> Hi David, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the review. Your time and comments are appreciated! >>>> >>>> comments/questions inline. >>>> >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 17, 2013, at 9:18 , "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>>>> >>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>>>> >>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >>>>> you may receive. >>>>> >>>>> Document: draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10 >>>>> Reviewer: David L. Black >>>>> Review Date: August 17, 2013 >>>>> IETF LC End Date: August 16, 2013 >>>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >>>>> >>>>> Summary: >>>>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be >>>>> fixed before publication. >>>>> >>>>> This draft describes scenarios in which Diameter overload can occur and >> provides >>>>> requirements for development of new overload control functionality in >> Diameter. >>>>> It is well written, and the inclusion of scenarios in which overload can >> occur, >>>>> both in terms of the relationships among types of Diameter nodes and >> actual mobile >>>>> network experience is very helpful. >>>>> >>>>> I apologize for this review being a day late, as I've been on vacation for >> most >>>>> of this draft's IETF Last Call period. >>>>> >>>>> Major issues: (none) >>>>> >>>>> Minor issues: (none) >>>>> >>>>> Nits/editorial comments: >>>>> >>>>> The following two comments could be minor issues, but I'm going to treat >> them >>>>> as editorial, as I expect that they will be addressed in development of >> the >>>>> actual overload functionality: >>>>> >>>>> a) I assume that overload control development work will derive more >> specific >>>>> security requirements - e.g., as REQ 27 is stated at a rather high level. >>>>> The discussion in security considerations section seems reasonable. >>>> >>>> We agree with this. The thinking here was that we didn't want to specify >> this >>>> in a way that would be specific to a particular type of mechanism. It >> might >>>> not hurt to state that assumption, either as a note on Req 27 or in the sec >>>> considerations. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> b) The draft, and especially its requirements in Section 7 are strongly >>>>> focused on individual Diameter node overload. That's necessary, but >> overload >>>>> conditions can be broader, affecting an entire service or application, or >>>>> multiple instances of either/both, even if not every individual Diameter >> node >>>>> involved is overloaded. A number of the requirements, starting with REQ >> 22 >>>>> could be generalized to cover broader overload conditions. >>>>> >>>>> This (b) has implications for other requirements, e.g., REQ 13 should also >> be >>>>> generalized beyond a single node to avoid increased traffic in an overload >>>>> situation, even from a node that is not overloaded by itself. There are >> limits >>>>> on what is reasonable here, as the desired overload functionality is >> TCP/SCTP- >>>>> like reaction to congestion where individual actions taken by nodes based >> on >>>>> the information they have (which is not the complete state of the network) >>>>> results in an overall reduction of load. >>>> >>>> The intent was very much as you say, where requirements on individual node >>>> capabilities are hoped to result in better overall system behaviors. There >> are >>>> also some requirements that are stated more at the system level (e.g. 7 and >>>> 17.) Also the text in section 2.2 that discusses Figure 5 talks about how >>>> insufficient server capacity at a cluster of servers behind a Diameter >> agent >>>> can be treated as if the agent itself was overloaded. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, any mechanism we design will have to focus on actions of >>>> individual nodes, so the numbered requirements tend to focus on that. I'm >> not >>>> sure where to change the balance here--do you have specific suggestions? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 1.2, 2nd paragraph: >>>>> >>>>> as network congestion, network congestion can reduce a Diameter nodes >>>>> >>>>> "nodes" -> "node's" >>>> >>>> good catch. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 5, 1st paragraph: >>>>> >>>>> This inadequacy may, in turn, contribute to broader congestion collapse >>>>> >>>>> "collapse" is not the right word here - I suggest "issues", "impacts", >>>>> "effects" or "problems". >>>> >>>> We are fine with any of those alternatives. How about impacts. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 7 >>>>> >>>>> The long enumerated list of requirements is not an easy read. It would be >>>>> better if these could somehow be grouped by functional category, e.g., >>>>> security, transport interactions, operational/administrative, etc. >>>> >>>> agree. It is actually in sections in the XML (denoted by comments), we >> just >>>> did not promote those to visible sections in the txt. I recall there being >>>> some issue with xml2rfc and numbering, but now that the numbers are set, >> this >>>> would not be hard to do. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> idnits 2.12.17 noticed the non-standard RFC 2119 boilerplate - this is >> fine, >>>>> as the boilerplate has been appropriately modified for this draft that >>>>> expresses requirements (as opposed to a draft that specifies a protocol). >>>>> >>>>> idnits 2.12.17 got confused by the 3GPP and GSMA Informative References. >>>>> I assume that they're all sufficiently stable to be informative >> references. >>>>> However, [TR23.843] is a work in progress, and should be noted as such in >>>>> its reference - is this needed for any of the other 3GPP or GSMA >> references? >>>> >>>> 23.843 is the least stable reference. I don't have any issue with pointing >>>> that out. The part of it we are referencing is historical front matter >>>> though. >>>> >>>> >>>> I tried the web and downloaded versions of 2.12.17 and was not able to get >> the >>>> warnings you saw (about the references). What did it say? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> --David >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >>>>> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >>>>> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >>>>> david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overl… Black, David
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-o… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-o… Jouni Korhonen