Subject: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:34:25 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-drmp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still think this part needs further clarification mostly regarding
applicability and maybe a warning as it could lead to starvation of
requests that do not define a priority, e.g. because there are not
supporting it (yet) while effectively having a higher priortiy than the
requests that they get starved by:
"When using DRMP priority information, Diameter nodes MUST use the
   default priority for transactions that do not have priority specified
   in a DRMP AVP."

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:49:32 +0100

Thanks Mirja and all for the discussion.

Authors - if you're ready, please do go ahead now and update
the draft based on all the discussion to date and we can then
check back with the various ADs who've commented. (I think
Alexey said he'd suggest a bit of text to address Mirja's
concern, so please do check with him as you prepare the
revision.)

Cheers,
S.

On 11/05/16 18:34, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:03:49 -0500

I am in the process of updating the draft.  I hope to have a new version 
for review early next week.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:20:13 +0100

> for review early next week.

Great,
S

>>> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html