[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11

Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Sun, 08 September 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056BD21E80B7 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 yieW1D2X9QmB for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com (mail-ve0-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 296D721E80BA for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Sep 2013 11:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cz12so2943459veb.32 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2lEegntF0BjqpgsHHu3SoYsZT9ijMct2KRvgaSQmCSo=; b=M9PCHqtmHuW2YSC3yICKgldEtmTRJmlLT/rjplKxL3m+HOxYxYZ6bx8lBJ0PIKiCjN Tq1ZPNa5ZYub/oCWkr8gXsj9AMrxad4upQdqaut2B+OJJfC70Xx63w03g1RiBgnsKtpP EX0H0Zd7LFkmwGnAe/nsFVslfTlGoCQfcjd8aXX4wfVTeWzXA3OC4Imc2nz5UMxStmvD r8WnKUExg1ABHTMm9rBRhD4nqf7pRLTNmqjeQ0VohR9TK4YlJ2q2TE/3T2lZo3lO3AVr PPOnTrlUpPb9TMQsZ0Oc/1Fm4gQ1s/uzgtHqW+EzZdDhiJ+j5K/p2ADTzwYyT9v+joli yRjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlyYZseg1buo4iJ5MrDTlokFT2y/fMaIAh4SUNXDdgO8RTZvyWIcQpFIQt63sy4JDB2pH5Y
X-Received: by 10.220.105.199 with SMTP id u7mr13308744vco.1.1378665961114; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.6] (pool-173-79-121-77.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.121.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ir5sm1777465veb.6.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Sep 2013 11:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:46:00 -0400
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <CE523E27.49E49%carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 18:46:09 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

This document describes the limitations of the existing Diameter overload
mechanisms and provides requirements for new overload management
mechanisms.  The document is very well written and clear.  I had just two
comments:

1) The last sentence of Requirement 13 is a bit hard to parse.

2) Requirement 31 requires indication of overload at specified
granularities (realm, application, node).  Should overload status
mechanisms have similar granularity requirements (see requirements 10 or
24)?