Diameter Load Information Conveyance
RFC 8583

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -08)
No email
send info
- From the shepherd writeup:
    The document would benefit from a review by AAA Doctors.

I wonder if it happened?

-
OLD:

   The DIME working group explicitly chose not to fulfill these
   requirements in DOIC due to several reasons. 

NEW:

   The DIME working group explicitly chose not to fulfill these
   requirements when publishing DOIC [RFC7683] due to several reasons. 

- pay attention to the consistency of Load versus load trough out the document.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-13 for -08)
No email
send info
consider reviewing the opsdir reviewers nits.

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -08)
No email
send info
More or less editorial comments:

1) These two MUSTs are actually hard to "ensure" and should probably be SHOULDs or lower case musts:
sec 6.1.1: "A Diameter endpoint that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST
   include a Load report of type HOST in sufficient answer messages to
   ensure that all consumers of the load information receive timely
   updates."
sec 6.1.2: "A Diameter Agent that supports the Diameter Load mechanism MUST
   include a PEER Load report in sufficient answer messages to ensure
   that all users of the load information receive timely updates."

2) This part also seems hard to realize (in sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2):
"The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the
   available load independently of the weight of each server, in order
   to accurately compare LOAD values from different nodes.  Any specific
   LOAD value needs to identify the same amount of available capacity,
   regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value.

   The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this
   requirement is an implementation decision."

3) I don't think you can require this for all diameter nodes (as they might not implement this extension):
"A Diameter node MUST be prepared to process Load reports of type HOST
   and of type PEER"
   Just remove the sentence or at least don't use normative language.
Side note: This MUST as well as the ones above are like saying "A node that implements/complies to this spec MUST implement this spec". It not really necessary to say this.

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -08)
No email
send info
Since DIME doesn't have end-to-end security, shouldn't the security considerations section mention that as well?  It seems to fit the security considerations and would serve as a reminder of this problem.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Ben Campbell) Recuse