Thanks David. - JOuni On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, "Black, David" <david.black@xxxxxxx> wrote: > And the -12 version is likewise ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Thanks, > --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Black, David >> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:41 PM >> To: Ben Campbell >> Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team (gen-art@xxxxxxxx); ietf@xxxxxxxx; >> dime@xxxxxxxx; bclaise@xxxxxxxxx; Black, David >> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11 >> >> 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 >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >