Meral,
Thank you for the review. Please see my comments inline.
Regards,
Steve
On 3/24/16 2:32 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any
other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-dime-drmp-04
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2016-03-24
IETF LC End Date: 2016-03-24
IESG Telechat date: NA
Summary:
This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have
some comments.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
-[Page 7],
"The mechanism for how the agent determines which requests are
throttled is implementation dependent and is outside the scope
of this document.
"
Shouldn’t all nodes handshake the mechanism to use to avoid countering
each other’s throttling decision/effect?
SRD> The handshake on the overload abatement algorithm is outlined in
RFC 7683. This document just allows for communication of message
priority information that can then feed into the abatement algorithm used.
-Security:
Security section is well written but not convincing that the method
described in this draft is a viable solution specially for first
responder and public safety scenarios.
Section 11.2 says DDOS is not an imminent thread but a few compromised
nodes could send heavy load of high priority requests – I may be
missing something here?
SRD> I guess I don't understand the question. It is true, as stated in
the draft, that the DRMP mechanism can be abused. It is also stated
that the transitive trust limitation that currently exists in Diameter
must be understood when using DRMP because of this. There are efforts
in the DIME group to address the need for end-to-end security but that
doesn't exist yet. So this draft is limited to outlining the
limitations and impacts of the solution.
Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 2], Please spell out DOIC at first use "Diameter Overload
Indication Conveyance"
SRD> Done.
-[Page 3], second sentence would read better as:
old:
"For instance it might be considered important to reduce the
probability of transactions involving first responders during a
period of heavy signaling resulting from a natural disaster being
throttled during overload scenarios.
"
new (suggested):
"For instance it might be considered important to reduce the
probability of transactions involving first responders being throttled
during overload scenarios caused for example by a period of heavy
signaling
resulting from a natural disaster.
"
SRD> OK
-[Page 3], "the DIOC reacting node", should it be DOIC?
SRD> Yes, good catch.
-[Page 4], Please spell out AVP at first use (currently done in Section 9)
SRD> Done
-[Page 6], "Platinum SLA the includes"--->"Platinum SLA that includes"
SRD> Done
-comment on above sentence? (should we say in case net neutrality
rules are not in place, ...." ?
SRD> I don't see the need. If net neutrality rules forbid
prioritization of Diameter overload abatement decisions then this
sentence doesn't apply. If those rules do not exist then it does. This
seems pretty self evident.
-[Page 6], sentence below did not read well.
old:
"In this scenario it is requests with the same command code that have
different implied priorities.
"
new (suggested):
"In this scenario requests with the same command code have
different implied priorities.
"
SRD> Good suggestion.
-[Page 6], Please spell out ULR at first use
SRD> Done
-[Page 7]
-[Page 7], [Page 8], and [Page 9] "non supportant"--->"non-supporting"
SRD> I changed the two instances of non supporting that I found.
-[Page 12], "which requests are are"--->"which requests are"
SRD> No pirates allows... :-) Change made.
-[Page 13], Please spell out TCP, SCTP, TLS, DTLS at first use
SRD> Done
-[Page 14], "degrated"--->"degraded"
SRD> Done
Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson
Research
www.ericsson.com
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
