Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report
draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-11

[Ballot comment]
Below is the OPS DIR review by Will.

** 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.

[Ballot comment]
(Resending because I forgot one more high-level comment; see at the bottom.)

One rather important comment:
While the security considerations section describes a possible attack, it does not say anything about how to handle this attack and the actually impact this attack might have. Please add more text!

And then some mostly editorial high level comments:
All in all, I had a rather hard time reading this document because it seems on the one hand sightly over-specified and over structured, while not giving very concrete guidance in some cases.

E.g. in section 5.2.5;
"In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a
  validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that if the reporting node
  has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then
  abatement associated with the OCS entry MUST be ended in a controlled
  fashion."
  I don't think normative language is needed here because there is no impact of interoperation. But then is does't explain what "in a controlled fashion means". So I wouldn't even know how to implement that MUST correctly.

Another example in section 4:
" In this scenario, when doing abatement on the
  PEER report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the
  number of messages already throttled by the handling of the HOST/
  REALM report abatement."
How to take that into consideration? And why is this normative?

Or here in section 5.2.3:
"When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
  peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter
  peer from which the report was received.

  If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
  SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which
  the response message was received then the report was generated by a
  Diameter peer."
Why don't you just say the following:
"When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
  peer it MUST determine that the SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which
  the response message was received."

Also the indentation used is sometimes confusing. In some cases you should probably really use real listings with bullet points.

Please also double-check all normative language: as indicated above there are some cases where the normative language is probably not really needed and there are other cases where an additional upper letter MUST or SHOULD would make things clearer.

[Ballot comment]
One rather important comment:
While the security considerations section describes a possible attack, it does not say anything about how to handle this attack and the actually impact this attack might have. Please add more text!

And then some mostly editorial high level comments:
All in all, I had a rather hard time reading this document because it seems on the one hand sightly over-specified and over structured, while not giving very concrete guidance in some cases.

E.g. in section 5.2.5;
"In the case that the OCS entry validity duration expires or has a
  validity duration of zero ("0"), meaning that if the reporting node
  has explicitly signaled the end of the overload condition then
  abatement associated with the OCS entry MUST be ended in a controlled
  fashion."
  I don't think normative language is needed here because there is no impact of interoperation. But then is does't explain what "in a controlled fashion means". So I wouldn't even know how to implement that MUST correctly.

Another example in section 4:
" In this scenario, when doing abatement on the
  PEER report, the reacting node SHOULD take into consideration the
  number of messages already throttled by the handling of the HOST/
  REALM report abatement."
How to take that into consideration? And why is this normative?

Or here in section 5.2.3:
"When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
  peer it MUST determine if the report was generated by the Diameter
  peer from which the report was received.

  If a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP of type peer and the
  SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which
  the response message was received then the report was generated by a
  Diameter peer."
Why don't you just say the following:
"When a reacting node receives an OC-OLR AVP with a report type of
  peer it MUST determine that the SourceID matches the DiameterIdentity of the Diameter peer from which
  the response message was received."

Also the indentation used is sometimes confusing. In some cases you should probably really use real listings with bullet points.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of [ RFC-to-be ], there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the AVP Codes subregistry of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/

two new AVP Codes are to be registered as follows:

AVP Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Attribute Name: OC-Peer-Algo
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

AVP Code: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Attribute Name: SourceID
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the OC-Report-Type AVP Values (code 626) subregistry also in the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/

a new registration will be made as follows:

AVP Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Attribute Name: PEER_REPORT
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of [ RFC-to-be ].

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Jouni Korhonen" , jouni.nospam@gmail.com, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'Diameter Agent Overload and the Peer Overload Report'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-01-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  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.

Requirements



The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-roach-dime-overload-ctrl: A Mechanism for Diameter Overload Control (None - )
Note that some of these references may already be listed in the acceptable Downref Registry.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  This document is standards track and it is stated in the title
  page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document specifies an extension to RFC7683, which adds
  a peer overload report type with the intended use case to cover
  a Diameter agent overload situation.

Working Group Summary

  The document has full support of the DIME WG and was discussed
  in length in the WG.

Document Quality

  No currently known implementations (the AVP code allocations are not done
  yet, for example). The document extends RFC7683, which is part of 3GPP
  Diameter based AAA interfaces specifications.

Personnel

  Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
  Kathleen Moriarty (kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com) is the responsible AD. 

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  AAA directorate should review the document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. All authors have responded and no IPRs were declared.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The document has been discussed in detail in the WG. It has the
  full support of the DIME WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  None. The IDnits may find some bogus or minor nits from the document.
  IDnits complain about the "updates" containing RFC and not just the
  number in the document header. This can be corrected by the RFC Editor.
  IDnits also complain about RFC 2119 reference being part of the abstract,
  which is not the case.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  None needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes. Note that references are in a non-typical order i.e., Informative
  references being before Normative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The specification has a normative reference to ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.
  These two documents need to be progressed in parallel.
  draft-ietf-dime-load also has a normative reference to this specification
  (agent-overload).

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations section points at Section 6 in the document,
  which then details the required IANA actions.
  Two new AVPS are listed in Section 6.4.
  A new OC-Report-Type is defined in Section 6.2.1. The allocation is done
  in the AVP Specific Values for the PC-Report-Type AVP.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  None.

IPR call sent 11/10/2016..

Dear Authors and Contributors,

Before proceeding with the photo write-up on draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-06, I would like to check whether there are any claims of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on the document.

Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-06? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79?  (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) If IPR disclosures have not been filed, please explain why.

Online tools for filing IPR disclosures can be found at .

Regards,
Jouni & Lionel