Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07
review-ietf-dime-load-07-genart-lc-even-2017-02-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dime-load
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-27
Requested 2017-02-13
Authors Ben Campbell , Steve Donovan , Jean-Jacques Trottin
I-D last updated 2017-02-23
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dime-load by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-02-23
review-ietf-dime-load-07-genart-lc-even-2017-02-23-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-load-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-02-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

I understand that each node can calculate the load differently , the example in
figure 8 demonstrate that the agent selection may be different if the agent
aggregates load from the servers to calculate its load or just conveys his
load, possibly even that each one of the agents will use different method. Why
not mandate load calculation using aggregated weighted loads?

Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 5 paragraph 9 "The load report includes a value indicating the
load of the sending
   node relative load of the sending node, " should be just "The load report
   includes a value indicating the relative load of the sending node,"
2. In section 6.2 "weigth "
3. in the security consideration what about an endpoint in the middle changing
the host load value causing a change in the routing decisions.