Re: [Dime] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt

Eric McMurry <emcmurry@computer.org> Wed, 19 December 2012 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <emcmurry@computer.org>
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 95BAB21F878F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:26:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ZHiBrB9gllT for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ED821F8790 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-76-184-161-215.tx.res.rr.com ([76.184.161.215] helo=antikythera.casamcmurry.com) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <emcmurry@computer.org>) id 1TlOLy-000PLg-UN; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:26:50 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antikythera.casamcmurry.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEB6DE1496; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:26:50 -0600 (CST)
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 76.184.161.215
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18IR/6oeu//9CA2kxxWD44gFe05EfweGZU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at casamcmurry.com
Received: from antikythera.casamcmurry.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (antikythera.casamcmurry.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pB8XJClFQYQ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:26:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [10.119.171.18] (unknown [217.171.42.130]) by antikythera.casamcmurry.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 197E5DE1490; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:26:49 -0600 (CST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Eric McMurry <emcmurry@computer.org>
In-Reply-To: <000601cdde0d$80d24f20$8276ed60$@azu.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:26:45 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <700CBE5A-6FDC-4C40-B312-5867557212F7@computer.org>
References: <20121218231927.31153.89871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <02FF8071-81D1-4CD2-9D97-E906BAA45FC8@nostrum.com> <8B064DAA-E5D5-4B20-BFBA-225DE9576D70@gmail.com> <50D1E5A3.2030005@gmail.com> <000601cdde0d$80d24f20$8276ed60$@azu.ca>
To: Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:26:51 -0000

Hi Mark,

There wasn't a mention of basic and refined before, but I think Tom's comment was close to what the requirement was trying to get at.  It goes beyond not changing the application id.  It is entirely possible to design a mechanism that requires no action from 3GPP and the requirement was intended to ensure that the resulting mechanism is designed that way.

Thanks,

Eric


On Dec 19, 2012, at 18:23 , Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca> wrote:

>> I think the requirement is trying to say the following:
>> 
>> "Basic support for overload controls MUST be independent of what
>> applications a given Diameter node supports. Individual applications MAY
>> provide more refined support for overload controls."
>> 
> 
> I'm not reading a requirement for basic vs. refined support from the current
> REQ 2 text.  I understand that REQ 2 is trying to establish the bounds of
> acceptable impacts on existing Diameter applications. IMHO it should read
> something like "the addition of the Diameter overload control mechanism to
> an existing Diameter application MUST NOT require the allocation of a new
> application id". Do we need to constrain the solution any further?
> 
> I don't understand the motivation for requiring that it "MUST NOT require
> specification changes for existing Diameter applications". If 3GPP decides
> that Diameter overload control must be supported on an existing reference
> point, I would expect the 3GPP TS for that release to be updated to state
> just that. This is a "specification change" and I don't see how else a
> vendor would know that they had to update their implementation. What am I
> missing here?
> 
> /Mark
> 
>> On 19/12/2012 3:47 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ben,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the update. Now that the new revision is out I would
>>> encourage the WG to sort out the language in REQ 2 asap. As long as it
>>> is in flux the document cannot proceed to WGLC.
>>> 
>>> - jouni
>>> 
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime