Indeed, thank you. Jari
On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks David. > > - JOuni > > > On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, "Black, David" <[email protected]> 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 ([email protected]); >>> [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; 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:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:50 PM >>>> To: Black, David >>>> Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team ([email protected]); >>> [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> 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" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:06 PM >>>>>> To: Black, David >>>>>> Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team ([email protected]); >>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
