Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08

From: Shucheng LIU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 22:12:27 -0700

Reviewer: Shucheng LIU
Review result: Has Nits

Hi all,

(Sorry for being late that I reviewed this draft with a printed one on
my flight to home last month, however, I left paper there…)
I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08 as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the
intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts.
Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

“This specification documents an extension to RFC 7683 (Diameter
   Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC)) base solution.  The
extension
   defines the Peer overload report type.  The initial use case for
the
   Peer report is the handling of occurrences of overload of a
Diameter
   agent.”

My overall view of the document is 'Ready with nits' for publication.

** Technical **
No.

** Editorial **

*Section 2, page 4
>    A RFC6733 Diameter Client, an RFC6733 Diameter Server, and
RFC6733
>       Diameter Agent.

s/ RFC6733/ [RFC6733]
Similar changes should also be made in this section to get consistent
with section 1 and the last sentence in section 2(therein you were
using [RFC6733]).

* Section 3.1.1, page 4:

>                              +-+    +-+    +-+
>                               |c|----|a|----|s|
>                              +-+    +-+    +-+

Though I can easily guess what does “c, a, s” mean here, I still
suggest to put full words or at least add a sentence below the figure
to explain.
The same issue should be fixed in all the figures below in entire
section 3.

* Section 3.1.2, page 6:

>   In the case where one of the agents in the above scenario becomes
>   overloaded

s/ scenario becomes/ scenarios become

If I understand correctly , here you were referring to two scenarios
above?

>   When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two
>   agents then an alternative strategy for responding to an overload
>   report from an agent is to change to standby connection to active
and
>   route all traffic through the new active connection.

I would suggest to split this sentence in case of misunderstanding.

* Section 3.1.3, page 7:

>  Handling of overload of one or both of agents a11 or a12 in this
case
>   is equivalent to that discussed in section 2.2.

Tried hard to find section 2.2, but there is no such section.

* Section 5.1.1, page 8:

>   When sending a Diameter request a DOIC node that supports the
>    OC_PEER_REPORT feature MUST include in the OC-Supported-Features
AVP
>    an OC-Feature-Vector AVP with the OC_PEER_REPORT bit set.

Full name of AVP should be put into terminology.

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:13:49 -0500

Shucheng,

Thank you for your review.  See my comments inline.

Regards,

Steve

> with section 1 and the last sentence in section 2(therein you were
Change made.
> The same issue should be fixed in all the figures below in entire
I've added the following in section 3.

    In the figures in this section, elements labeled "c" are Diameter 
Clients,
    elements labeled "a" are Diameter Agents and elements labeled "s" are
    Diameter Servers.
> If I understand correctly , here you were referring to two scenarios
Change made.
> I would suggest to split this sentence in case of misunderstanding.
Changed to:

When the client has an active and a standby connection to the two agents 
then
             an alternative strategy for responding to an overload 
report from an agent is
             to change the standby connection to active.  This will 
result in all traffic
             being routed through the new
             active connection.
> Tried hard to find section 2.2, but there is no such section.
This was fixed in the last version of the draft.
> Full name of AVP should be put into terminology.
Change made.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime