IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Mon, 19 August 2013 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D0811E80E1; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.536, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0rYEtN-Il7tt; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1C611E810A; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r7JFQZ2l008641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:26:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id r7JFQYwl006239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:26:35 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id r7JFQWiW010749; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:26:34 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <52123A42.6030405@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:31:14 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11
Cc: IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:26:41 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see ​
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10
Title: Diameter Overload Control Requirements
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Aug-19-2013
IETF Last Call Date: Not known
IESG Telechat Date: Not known

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational
RFC; two minor issues follow.

Major comments: 0
Minor comments: 1
Nits: 1

Minor:
======
- Abstract - You may consider taking out the Section numbers in the
  Abstract. They really do not belong there, and you can impart the same
  information without using the section numbers (e.g., "Existing
  Diameter mechanisms are not sufficient for this purpose.  This
  document describes the limitations of the existing mechanisms and
  proposes requirements for new overload management mechanisms.")

Nits:
=====
- S3.2, first paragraph: "This document is a work in progress...",
  here, "This" refers to TR23.843 or does it refer to dime-overload-
  reqs-10?  Please clarify.  On further reading, there are more
  "this document" spread in the subsection with providing an adequate
  text that qualifies the "this".

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email