Subject: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-load-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:27:53 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-load-08: 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-load/

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

More or less editorial comments:

1) These two MUSTs are actually hard to "ensure" and should probably be
SHOULDs or lower case musts:
sec 6.1.1: "A Diameter endpoint that supports the Diameter Load mechanism
MUST
   include a Load report of type HOST in sufficient answer messages to
   ensure that all consumers of the load information receive timely
   updates."
sec 6.1.2: "A Diameter Agent that supports the Diameter Load mechanism
MUST
   include a PEER Load report in sufficient answer messages to ensure
   that all users of the load information receive timely updates."

2) This part also seems hard to realize (in sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2):
"The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the
   available load independently of the weight of each server, in order
   to accurately compare LOAD values from different nodes.  Any
specific
   LOAD value needs to identify the same amount of available capacity,
   regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value.

   The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this
   requirement is an implementation decision."

3) I don't think you can require this for all diameter nodes (as they
might not implement this extension):
"A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process Load reports of type HOST
   and of type PEER"
   Just remove the sentence or at least don't use normative language.
Side note: This MUST as well as the ones above are like saying "A node
that implements/complies to this spec MUST implement this spec". It not
really necessary to say this.

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:51:34 -0500

Mirja,

Thank you for your review.  Please see my comments inline.

Regars,

Steve

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-load/
Given were we are in the review process, I'm not comfortable changing 
these from MUST to SHOULD.  As such, I'd prefer to go ahead with MUSTs.
>     requirement is an implementation decision."
I don't understand the proposal.  This is not normative so I don't see 
an issue.
> really necessary to say this.
This requirement is included to address discussions that occurred within 
the working group.  Many assumed that there would only ever be a single 
report in any message.

I've added "...that supports the Diameter Load mechanism..."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime