From nobody Mon Dec 3 09:14:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC72130F79; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:14:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Secretariat To: Cc: dime@ietf.org, ipr-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <154385725830.18362.16955231814116457679@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 09:14:18 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Dime] IPR Disclosure Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy's Statement about IPR related to RFC 7683 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 17:14:19 -0000 Dear Jouni Korhonen, Steve Donovan, Ben Campbell, Lionel Morand: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance" (RFC7683) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3158/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy's Statement about IPR related to RFC 7683" Thank you IETF Secretariat From nobody Fri Dec 21 15:06:39 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7BE130EC1; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M7o8JNZ7C2EW; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41965130EB8; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:06:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.45] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBLN6UwF056929 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:06:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545433592; bh=9Hbfk01kVJjjd58JxFUcQzdTXSg0wSGa50zdrmlX+wY=; h=From:Subject:Date:Cc:To; b=uqFbc4nPLY4jIWQ6IGs8lJfZ7/sTt5rx5xNRcE5+M/9HmKExRb1R1edkva1kxu4eG rJrZkQ1dN77uWJODoxl/cB3fixmaQYTl8Xg0/dGDYl8VMKXR8+GAART3uD4dWAu6Jw uV7S4CBgAhCnujI4HAwjRkzINCpTR7ErQT3AD0po= X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.45] From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D642995C-DB77-42DB-9D98-F0C32D507AF3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:06:28 -0600 Cc: dime@ietf.org To: draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.all@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: [Dime] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:06:38 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D642995C-DB77-42DB-9D98-F0C32D507AF3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, This is my AD evaluation for draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10. I = previously reviewed version 8, however since some time has passed I = reviewed this version =E2=80=9Cfrom scratch=E2=80=9D. In general the draft is in good shape. I think it=E2=80=99s ready for = IETF Last Call, which I will request shortly. Please note the last call = window will be extended due to the upcoming holidays. I have a few minor comments that can be resolved along with any last = call feedback. Thanks! Ben. ------------------------------------- =C2=A74, paragraphs 2 and 3: Am I correct to assume that, as new DOIC = algorithms get added, nodes could support both of these and something = else? If so, then in paragraph 2 I suggest s/ =E2=80=9C support both the = loss and rate based abatement algorithms=E2=80=9D/ "support at least the = loss and rate based abatement algorithms=E2=80=9D ... and in paragraph 3, I suggest adding something to the effect of = =E2=80=9C... and MAY indicate support for others.=E2=80=9D (nit) =C2=A75.5, 2nd paragraph: "It is also possible for the reporting = node to send overload reports with the rate algorithm indicated when the reporting node is not in an overloaded state.=E2=80=9D I suggest s/ =E2=80=9Cindicated when=E2=80=9D / =E2=80=9Cindicated even = when=E2=80=9D (nit) =C2=A75.6, first paragraph: The algorithm is detailed in 7.3. =C2=A77.3.1: "To apply abatement treatment to new Diameter requests at = the rate specified in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP value sent by the reporting node to its reacting nodes, the reacting node MAY use the proposed default algorithm for rate-based control or any other equivalent algorithm that forward messages in conformance with the upper bound of 1/T messages per second.=E2=80=9D This is redundant to similar normative text in =C2=A75.6. I suggest = keeping just one (probably this one since it=E2=80=99s more precise) and = use descriptive language for the other. =C2=A79: Do the authors think that the rate algorithm might be more = effective at DoS mitigation than the loss algorithm? If so, that might = be worth a mention in the security considerations. --Apple-Mail=_D642995C-DB77-42DB-9D98-F0C32D507AF3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEExW9rpd7ez4DexOFOgFZKbJXz1A0FAlwdcfQACgkQgFZKbJXz 1A15AxAAtYOH9vHoh2FzYgicEOVGsYQc/7X2BrD9NBDts3pXeqL1ETrLWkRvvQvJ JhG1bD/UwSMTl5axqz6Q97+igEqKWFxttJ3aRv2zjHnTFCT52880vxidDLxPpbOh p9iW47pvT/px1nLbFSNJrpnfFVMCI/nuDA5//YWn/ZhEERVfudDxUqJYPSrNJWpK gHRD4C57Jho90BUtvZJWHyuMSEHCt+C1RNv77NUVCje/K4IOAJhcTM0itJaCGRPg vbHW+8/8Cr2NW1LkS6NaMzDfzl0O+KX65hCrzk0eshCzp2oUpuu5yaTVvPT/89Iu rk4v4xlrVeZbnEBI9gA45aTl7FE+53ZET0Rx7Ju+O8fipda0mlgrcXv4o3Xts7Hu b8dOc+Tqhn5agfGD25bUmr5a8X7PM+SgVZAtBhxf5ToGxgsm2H0vyhIpvPMTFfi5 UmY30dfY10JeDmShs1Jc3NzG0vmSDJ37U+Q5fGMTXzsZMKOBoHHlchj9GkZ4gvQJ TSxp/meOhkbR1SJwe/SzJZWahsR0bJYFNoCwaWlrRedx+Rs3qvl3q+Ocj7KftM9a HekFQiiO37TRBmaBztCB3uuytZcULMupfGxCpRSFfIRfTYpSjcdZPYhvYbjEkuAt QdZ5OurmQ9WGS2hKsronPsWsfWMMLfTRgAG4ezrdzxEmmColUiE= =U+Wg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D642995C-DB77-42DB-9D98-F0C32D507AF3-- From nobody Fri Dec 21 15:17:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F5C130ED0; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:17:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk CC: ben@nostrum.com, lionel.morand@orange.com, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, Lionel Morand , draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Message-ID: <154543423436.20374.14877575277400644849.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:17:14 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Dime] Last Call: (Diameter Overload Rate Control) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:17:14 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: - 'Diameter Overload Rate Control' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-01-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This specification documents an extension to the Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683] base solution. This extension adds a new overload control abatement algorithm. This abatement algorithm allows for a DOIC reporting node to specify a maximum rate at which a DOIC reacting node sends Diameter requests to the DOIC reporting node. Requirements The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Fri Dec 28 04:22:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC417128CF3; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 04:22:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: dime@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dime@ietf.org Message-ID: <154599976677.21598.16096057445752486798@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 04:22:46 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 12:22:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF. Title : Diameter Group Signaling Authors : Mark Jones Marco Liebsch Lionel Morand Filename : draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2018-12-28 Abstract: In large network deployments, a single Diameter node can support over a million concurrent Diameter sessions. Recent use cases have revealed the need for Diameter nodes to apply the same operation to a large group of Diameter sessions concurrently. The Diameter base protocol commands operate on a single session so these use cases could result in many thousands of command exchanges to enforce the same operation on each session in the group. In order to reduce signaling, it would be desirable to enable bulk operations on all (or part of) the sessions managed by a Diameter node using a single or a few command exchanges. This document specifies the Diameter protocol extensions to achieve this signaling optimization. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Dec 28 12:46:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233A013115E; Fri, 28 Dec 2018 12:46:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jouni Korhonen To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, jounikor@gmail.com Message-ID: <154602999113.21520.13423930307359214287.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 12:46:31 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [Dime] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 20:46:31 -0000 Jouni Korhonen has requested publication of draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-12 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the DIME working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling/