Subject: [Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:25:32 +0200

Here is a new set of comments, after the review of
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt

Regards,

Lionel

********
Abstract:

   This document  defines  Attribute-Value  Pair  (AVP)  containers  for
   various  priority  parameters  for  use  with  Diameter  and  the AAA
   framework. 

==> Acronyms in Abstract should be avoided.

*******
Section 1.  Introduction:

   This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs  (AVPs)  that
   can  be  used  within  the  Diameter  protocol  [RFC3588] to convey a
   specific set of priority parameters.  The parameters  themselves  are
   specified in other documents, but are described briefly below.

==> Should it be for use in Diameter QoS application (RFC5866) instead
of diameter base protocol (rfc3588)?

*******
Section 3.1.  Dual-Priority AVP

   The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of  two  AVPs;  the
   Preemption-Priority  and  the Defending-Priority AVP.  These AVPs are
   derived from  the  corresponding  priority  fields  in  the  Signaled
   Preemption  Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205].  The
   Defending-Priority is set when the  reservation  has  been  admitted.
   The  Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared
   with the Defending Priority  of  a  previously  admitted  flow.   The
   actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function
   of local policy.

==> I think that it would be useful to repeat at the end of this text
that the use of theses parameters is specified in RFC3181.

*******
Section 3.3 SIP-RPH AVP

==> "RPH" is not defined. If a new version is required, would it be
simpler to have a explicit name such like "SIP-Resource-Priority"? The
same comment may also apply for the other AVPs. We would have therefore
SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and SIP-Resource-Priority-Value if
agreed.

*******
Section 3.3.1.  SIP-Namespace AVP

   The SIP-RPH-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.

==> Inconsistency between name of the AVP in Title and the body.
Previous comment maybe taken into account.

******
Section 3.4.  App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP

   The  App-Level-Resource-Priority  (ALRP)  AVP  is   a   grouped   AVP
   consisting  of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority
   AVP.

==> "App-Level-Resource-Priority" may also be
"Application-Level-Resource-Priority" as in
I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp.
==> to ease the mapping with I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp, the second
AVP in the grouped AVP should be renamed "ALRP-Value AVP", as the name
of the field is Application-Level Resource Priority policy element.

******
Section 5.  Security Considerations

     TBD

==> Is there any ongoing discussion on this topic. If there is no
specific security issue with the introduction of this set of AVP, maybe
a text like in RFC 5777 would be good enough
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5777#section-11):

   "This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying
   Quality of Service information.  The security considerations of the
   Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588].
   Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration
   the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol."

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:13:08 -0400

Hi Lionel,

my apologies for the very tardy reply

> ==> Acronyms in Abstract should be avoided.

the I-D guidelines only stress that acronyms should be expanded, so I think we are fine here.
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#anchor11

> of diameter base protocol (rfc3588)?

You raise a good point.  i think its good to keep a reference in the Introduction to rfc3588, but I should also add in this section that this particular draft also represents an extension to rfc5866

> that the use of theses parameters is specified in RFC3181.

that would seem to be a bit redundant within the same paragraph.  If its important for us to use the word "specified" in the text, I can insert it in the second sentence above so that it looks like this:
"These AVPs are derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]."

> SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and SIP-Resource-Priority-Value if

that's fine, I'll expand to name as you suggest.

> Previous comment maybe taken into account.

ok

> I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp.

ok

> of the field is Application-Level Resource Priority policy element.

ok

>   the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol."

Sounds fine, I'll add it in.  
Thanks again for your comments.

-ken

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:41:31 +0700

> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#anchor11

Isn't "AAA" an acronym?

...

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:45:37 -0400

yes
-ken