[Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 15 June 2010 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972713A697A for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.316
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ShWvBkUIBwsY for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DBD3A68DF for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id E33EA8B8006 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:25:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4998B8005 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:25:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:25:33 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:25:32 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C9CAACD@ftrdmel1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcsM2arS7tN/MDfiQ62l61GrXJQiWw==
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dime@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2010 22:25:33.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB6F8480:01CB0CD9]
Subject: [Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:25:30 -0000

Here is a new set of comments, after the review of
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt

Regards,

Lionel

********
Abstract:

   This document  defines  Attribute-Value  Pair  (AVP)  containers  for
   various  priority  parameters  for  use  with  Diameter  and  the AAA
   framework. 

==> Acronyms in Abstract should be avoided.

*******
Section 1.  Introduction:

   This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs  (AVPs)  that
   can  be  used  within  the  Diameter  protocol  [RFC3588] to convey a
   specific set of priority parameters.  The parameters  themselves  are
   specified in other documents, but are described briefly below.

==> Should it be for use in Diameter QoS application (RFC5866) instead
of diameter base protocol (rfc3588)?

*******
Section 3.1.  Dual-Priority AVP

   The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of  two  AVPs;  the
   Preemption-Priority  and  the Defending-Priority AVP.  These AVPs are
   derived from  the  corresponding  priority  fields  in  the  Signaled
   Preemption  Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205].  The
   Defending-Priority is set when the  reservation  has  been  admitted.
   The  Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared
   with the Defending Priority  of  a  previously  admitted  flow.   The
   actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function
   of local policy.

==> I think that it would be useful to repeat at the end of this text
that the use of theses parameters is specified in RFC3181.

*******
Section 3.3 SIP-RPH AVP

==> "RPH" is not defined. If a new version is required, would it be
simpler to have a explicit name such like "SIP-Resource-Priority"? The
same comment may also apply for the other AVPs. We would have therefore
SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and SIP-Resource-Priority-Value if
agreed.

*******
Section 3.3.1.  SIP-Namespace AVP

   The SIP-RPH-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.

==> Inconsistency between name of the AVP in Title and the body.
Previous comment maybe taken into account.

******
Section 3.4.  App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP

   The  App-Level-Resource-Priority  (ALRP)  AVP  is   a   grouped   AVP
   consisting  of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority
   AVP.

==> "App-Level-Resource-Priority" may also be
"Application-Level-Resource-Priority" as in
I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp.
==> to ease the mapping with I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp, the second
AVP in the grouped AVP should be renamed "ALRP-Value AVP", as the name
of the field is Application-Level Resource Priority policy element.

******
Section 5.  Security Considerations

     TBD

==> Is there any ongoing discussion on this topic. If there is no
specific security issue with the introduction of this set of AVP, maybe
a text like in RFC 5777 would be good enough
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5777#section-11):


   "This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying
   Quality of Service information.  The security considerations of the
   Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588].
   Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration
   the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol."