Last Call Review of draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10
review-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10-genart-lc-romascanu-2013-11-19-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 11/19/13
IETF LC End Date: 11/19/13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: The document is ready, there are a few minor issues which are worth
being clarified.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

1. I had some issues with the examples in the introduction.

>  There are three common examples of legitimate short-term increases in
   call volumes.  Viewer-voting TV shows or ticket giveaways may
   generate millions of calls within a few minutes.  Call volume may
   also spike during special holidays such as New Year's Day and
   Mother's Day. Finally, callers may want to reach friends and family
   in natural disaster areas such as those affected by hurricanes.  When
   possible, only calls traversing overloaded servers should be
   throttled under those conditions.

I am not sure what the term 'legitimate' means here. I would rather say that
the paragraph rather deals with increases in call volumes that happen at
predictable moments in time (assuming here that the time a hurricane hits a
certain geographic zone is predicted by weather forecasters). There would be
one more example to add here - the end-of-season (of month, of year) peaks in
phone orders.

There is another category of unpredicted/unpredictable events which is
mentioned a few paragraphs later, and which puts a slightly different set of
requirements. The list already includes earthquakes or terrorist attacks, it
may add the increase in traffic on call centers that provide troubleshooting
services when a mass service fails.

A slight re-organization of this text would improve clarity.

2. In Section 4 - Design Requirements:

  o  The solution should draw upon experiences from related PSTN
      mechanisms where applicable.

I have no clue what this section means in the absence of a reference and/or a
list of what PSTN mechanisms are to be considered.

Also, in the same list of requirements I miss an explicit requirement on
persistency.

3. In Section 5.4 in the compliance list - I believe that compliance to the SIP
Event Notification Framework [RFC 6665] should be added.

Nits/editorial comments: