Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-04
review-ietf-dime-drmp-04-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-03-25-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.





Document:  draft-ietf-dime-drmp-04

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2016-03-24

IETF LC End Date:  2016-03-24

IESG Telechat date: NA





Summary:

This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some
comments.



Major issues:



Minor issues:

-[Page 7],

"The mechanism for how the agent determines which requests are

       throttled is implementation dependent and is outside the scope of  this
       document.

"



Shouldn’t all nodes handshake the mechanism to use to avoid countering each
other’s throttling decision/effect?



-Security:

Security section is well written but not convincing that the method described
in this draft is a viable solution specially for first responder and public
safety scenarios.

Section 11.2 says DDOS is not an imminent thread but a few compromised nodes
could send heavy load of high priority requests – I may be missing something
here?





Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 2], Please spell out DOIC at first use "Diameter Overload Indication
Conveyance"



-[Page 3], second sentence would read better as:

old:

"For instance it might be considered important to reduce the

   probability of transactions involving first responders during a

   period of heavy signaling resulting from a natural disaster being

   throttled during overload scenarios.

"

new (suggested):

"For instance it might be considered important to reduce the

probability of transactions involving first responders being throttled

during overload scenarios caused for example by a period of heavy signaling

resulting from a natural disaster.

"

-[Page 3], "the DIOC reacting node", should it be DOIC?



-[Page 4], Please spell out AVP at first use (currently done in Section 9)



-[Page 6], "Platinum SLA the includes"--->"Platinum SLA that includes"



-comment on above sentence? (should we say in case net neutrality rules are not
in place, ...." ?



-[Page 6], sentence below did not read well.

old:

"In this scenario it is requests with the same command code that have

different implied priorities.



"



new (suggested):

"In this scenario requests with the same command code have

different implied priorities.

"



-[Page 6], Please spell out ULR at first use



-[Page 7]



-[Page 7], [Page 8], and [Page 9] "non supportant"--->"non-

supporting

"



-[Page 12], "which requests are are"--->"which requests are"



-[Page 13], Please spell out TCP, SCTP, TLS, DTLS at first use



-[Page 14], "degrated"--->"degraded"



Best Regards,

Meral

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com