Thanks, David! On Aug 27, 2013, at 11:40 AM, "Black, David" <david.black@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:50 PM >> To: Black, David >> Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx); ietf@xxxxxxxx; >> dime@xxxxxxxx; bclaise@xxxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:06 PM >>>> To: Black, David >>>> Cc: ben@xxxxxxxxxxx; General Area Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx); >>>> ietf@xxxxxxxx; dime@xxxxxxxx; bclaise@xxxxxxxxx >>>> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >