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

[Eric McMurry <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carl,

Thanks for taking the time to look at this and provide comments.

For your first comment, we think it would be fine to drop the last sentence of requirement 13 to avoid confusion.  It is not necessary.

For your second, are you asking if the load levels in req 24 should have granularity requirements?  It may make sense for a load metric to have similar granularity to the overload information, but the thinking was that the load metric may be used in different ways and we did not want to constrain it.

I'm a bit lost on how requirement 10 would relate to this though.  Can you please elaborate a bit on the question?

Thanks!

Eric


On Sep 8, 2013, at 13:46 , Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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)?
> 
>