Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance
draft-ietf-dime-ovli-10

[Ballot comment]
Nice job on the Security Considerations!  It would be very nice if end-to-end encryption were supported, but I do appreciate the detail level on the risks/security considerations that were included in the draft.

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

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dime-ovli-08.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA understands that there are three actions which IANA must complete upon approval of this document.

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

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

a block of seven new AVP codes which have temporary assignments in the registry will now be made permanent as follows:

AVP Code | Attribute Name | Reference
------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------
621 OC-Supported-Features [ RFC-to-be ]
622 OC-Feature-Vector [ RFC-to-be ]
623 OC-OLR [ RFC-to-be ]
624 OC-Sequence-Number [ RFC-to-be ]
625 OC-Validity-Duration [ RFC-to-be ]
626 OC-Report-Type [ RFC-to-be ]
627 OC-Reduction-Percentage [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, a new registry called the Overload Control Feature Vector registry is to be created. This registry will be created in and be a subregistry of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at:

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

The registration rule for this new registry is Specification Required as defined in RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

Feature Vector Value Reference
--------------------------------------+---------------------
OLR_DEFAULT_ALGO (0x0000000000000001) [ RFC-to-ben ]

Third, a new registry called the Overload Report Type registry is to be created. This registry will be created in and be a subregistry of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at:

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

The registration rule for this new registry is Specification Required as defined in RFC 5226.

There are initial registrations in this new registry as follows:

Report Type Value Description Reference
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------
HOST_REPORT 0 The overload report is for a host. [ RFC-to-be ]
Overload abatement treatment applies
to host-routed requests.

REALM_REPORT 1 The overload report is for a realm. [ RFC-to-be ]
Overload abatement treatment applies
to realm-routed requests.

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance'
  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 2015-07-27. 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 defines a base solution for Diameter overload
  control, referred to as Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance
  (DOIC).




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

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


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

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?

  The document is Standards Track.  This is the correct track. The type
  of RFC is indicated in the 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

  The document defines a solution for Diameter Overload Indication
  Conveyance. (DOIC)

Working Group Summary

  The document had a long process of working group review.  It has
  achieved consensus in the WG.

Document Quality

  The document has not been implemented, as multiple vendors were waiting
  for IANA assignment of code points.  We expect no issues with
  implementation.  Multiple vendors have stated that they plan on
  implementing it.  The 3GPP forum is waiting on this document.

Personnel

  The document Shepherd is Alan DeKok.
  The responsible area director is Kathleen Moriarty.

(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.

  I have reviewed the document in detail, both recently and as the
  document was progressing through the working group.  I believe
  that the document is ready for publication.

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

  I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.

(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.

  The document does not need review from a broader perspective.

(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.

  I have no specific concerns that the AD and/or IESG should be made
  aware of.

(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.

  Each author has made all appropriate IPR disclosures.

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

  No IPR disclosures have been filed which reference this document.

(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? 

  This document has strong WG consensus across a broad range of people.
  The WG as a whole understands and agrees with the document.

(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 appeals have been threatened, and no discontent has been registered.

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

  There are two NITs, one is that the document is old, but less than 186 days.
  The second is

      Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
      draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-01

  Both NITs can be solved with a rev of the document.

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

  The document needs no formal review from other areas.

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

  All references have been identified as normative or informative.

(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?

  All normative references are to published RFCs.

(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.

  There are no downward normative references in this document.

(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.

  This document does not change the status of existing RFCs.

(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).

  I have reviewed the IANA considerations section.  It is consistent
  with the body of the document.  All protocol extensions are associated
  with appropriate reservations for IANA.

  The document defines two new registries, which have been clearly
  identified.  These registries include detailed specifications for the
  initial contents of the registries.  Allocation procedures are done
  via the procedures defined in RFC 5226, the "Specification required"
  section.

(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.

  All registries require specifications.  Expert review is not
  permitted.

(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.

  The document contains no data which can be reviewed via automated
  checks.