Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Lionel,

Please see inline.

Steve

On 3/26/14 1:34 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> In London, we ended up with the following proposal:
>
> - ONLY two report types - "Host" that applies when destination-host
> is present in the request. - "Realm" that applies to any request
> sent to a realm, except when a destination-host is present in the
> request AND a "Host" applies for this destination-host.

SRD> Yes, we agreed to two report types, Host and Realm.  The definition
of Realm was all traffic sent to the realm.  Look back at slide 4 in the
slides for the meeting to confirm:

http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/89/slides/slides-89-dime-1.pdf

My reading of the above is consistent with these definitions.  The above
statement also defines the interaction between host and realm reports. 
Restating, the following normative statements would apply:

When determining if a request should be throttled, there are three cases:

- Only a Realm report (based on the definition from the meeting) matches
the message -- In this case the Realm report MUST be used to determine
if the message is throttled.
- Only a Host report matches the message -- In this case the Host report
MUST be used to determine if the message is throttled.
- Both a Realm and Host report match the message -- In this case the
Host report MUST be used to determine if the message is throttled and
throttling based on the Realm report MUST NOT also be applied to the
message.

I'm ok at the moment with this wording, but I don't think we've thought
through the implications of prioritizing Host reports over Realm reports
when both apply.  As such, this is open to change in a future version of
the draft.

> 
> About renaming "Realm" as "Realm-Routed-Request", no strong issue as
> soon as the principle above are kept.

SRD> If we go with your proposal above then there is no name change but
rather a change in the definition of Realm report.

If we go with Ulrich's proposal then we should change the name from
Realm to RRR (or some other name yet to be suggested).

If we go with three reports then we also need to change the name of the
existing Realm report to RRR and redefine Realm to match the above logic.

> 
> The need for realm-based type that would apply to any request (even
> if a "Host" exists for a destination-host in the request) was
> challenged and not retained. Ben was supposed to lock you in a room
> and to convince you that this last report type was not needed.

This is NOT my recollection of the decision and is NOT what is reflected
in the minutes.  This is also NOT what you say above.

Here's the relevant portion of the minutes:

Report types - there was consensus that Host and Realm report types
needed to be retained. Ben suggested that if a node sent a Realm report,
it needed to be an absolute authority for the realm. Dave did not agree
that agents needed to be authoritative and felt that clients should be
able to make their own decisions on conflicting realm reports, which
Lionel disagreed with. Maria Cruz agreed with both proposals because it
would be deployment dependent. Steve said that the draft should provide
guidance that a sender of the realm report should be an authority and
that realm reports should not contradict. It should provide guidance on
what the client should do if does receive different realm reports. Ben
pointed out that, in the case where a realm was sending overload
reports, individual servers could send Reductions of 0% in their reports
to provide more information to clients.

ACTION: Ben and Steve to discuss Realm-Routed-Request and come up with a
proposal on whether to remove or to incorporate.

ACTION: Next version of DOIC will keep Host and Realm and leave
Realm-Routed-Request an open issue.

ACTION: Clarify precedence of the host and realm report types and what
actions to take when they are received.

> 
> Lionel
>
> Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia SP d'Orange
>
> Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> a écrit :
>
> Consensus is obviously a fleeting and temporary thing.
>
> Let us make sure that we are precise in our definitions of the
> report types we are discussing.
>
> Host report - Applies when the destination-host AVP is present in
> the request. Realm-Routed-Request (RRR) - Applies when there is no
> destination-host AVP in the request. Realm - Applies to 100% of
> requests sent to the realm.
>
> These are the definitions used in our discussions in London and in
> various places in our email discussions.
>
> Can we please agree to use these definitions going forward so we are
> all talking about the same thing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 3/25/14 10:27 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maria Cruz, All,
>>
>>
>>
>> In the previous mail, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> /That is, we have two reports, host and realm. /
>>
>> /Host applies when Destination_host is present, and then it takes
>> precedence over Realm. If both are present, only Host is applied./
>>
>> /Realm applies when only Destination_realm is present./
>>
>>
>>
>> And I agree with this statement. But I'm not sure that this is the
>> case discussed by Ulrich.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever the name of the realm report type, is there an agreement
>> on the description given above by Maria Cruz and discussed in
>> London?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lionel
>>
>>
>>
>> *De :*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Maria
>> Cruz Bartolome *Envoyé :* mardi 25 mars 2014 16:21 *À :* Wiehe,
>> Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); ext Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org *Objet
>> :* Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for
>> Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I support option 1 a well
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> /MCruz
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Wiehe,
>> Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) *Sent:* martes, 25 de marzo de 2014 16:15
>>  *To:* ext Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [Dime]
>> Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Thank you for this summary.
>>
>> Please see inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*ext Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com] *Sent:*
>> Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:49 PM *To:* Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN -
>> DE/Munich); dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re:
>> [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for
>> Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich,
>>
>> I mean going backwards from where I thought we were after the
>> London meeting.
>>
>> We are clearly out of sync but hopefully we can fix that.
>>
>> Here's my understanding of the status of #23 and #55.
>>
>> Prior to London meeting:
>>
>> #23 status: - Agreement to change the name of existing realm
>> reports to realm-routed-reports (RRR).
>>
>> <Ulrich>this includes agreement to keep the (newly called)
>> realm-routed-reports</Ulrich> - Discussions were ongoing as to the
>> need for both realm reports and RRR reports.
>>
>> <Ulrich>I would say “…as to the need for realm reports in addition
>> to realm-routed-reports” </Ulrich>
>>
>>
>>
>> #55 status: - Agreement on adding Realm reports based on the
>> definition that realm reports apply to all traffic sent to the
>> realm.
>>
>> <Ulrich>This is what I’m missing. The issue has been very briefly
>> discussed under #34 without conclusion. There was no discussion
>> under #55</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>> - Limited discussion on the interaction between the new realm
>> reports and the existing host and RRR reports.
>>
>> After London meeting:
>>
>> #23 status: - Tentative agreement in London meeting to remove RRR
>> reports.
>>
>> <Ulrich>What was the technical argument?</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>> - Ben expressed the strongest concern with this plan.  Steve and
>> Ben took action to discuss and come back with a recommendation.
>>
>> #55 status: - No change
>>
>> Summary: - Tentative consensus reached to move forward with two
>> report types - host and realm, with realm having the new
>> definition. <Ulrich>What was the technical argument?</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>> Current status:
>>
>> #23 status: - Change the name to RRR - Whether or not to remove
>> RRR and revisit later or keep RRR and revisit later is an open
>> issue.
>>
>> #55 status: - My opinion is that we have at least rough consensus
>> on the need to support realm reports.  Others might have a
>> different opinion.
>>
>> <Ulrich> There was no comment posted to issue #55, also no
>> proposed solution, so I cannot see where the consensus came
>> from</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>>
>> Summary: - I believe we have three options:
>>
>> 1) Support host and RRR reports 2) Support host and Realm reports
>> -- This was the tentative plan coming out of the London meeting
>>
>> < Ulrich> There is not even an issue number identifying problems
>> with RRR and proposing to remove RRR</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>> 3) Support host, RRR and Realm reports
>>
>> <Ulrich> I support option 1</Ulrich>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 3/25/14 6:44 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I don’t think we are going backwards (we may be out of synch
>> though)
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please summarize the status of #23 and #55.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*ext Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com] *Sent:*
>> Monday, March 24, 2014 7:38 PM *To:* Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN -
>> DE/Munich); dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re:
>> [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for
>> Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, we are going backwards on this one.
>>
>> I did not include option three because we had moved past that
>> option in our discussions, both on the list (I thought), and in
>> the meeting.
>>
>> I believe that we had come to rough consensus on the need for a
>> realm report and the only remaining issue was whether we also
>> included the RRR report type.
>>
>> At this point, the only option is to leave all of the issues
>> related to the report types open and attempt to resolve them in
>> the -03 draft.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 3/24/14 11:13 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> We should still have the option
>>
>> 3) support report type 0 (this is called host report) and support
>> of report type 1 (this has been called relam report but people
>> argued it should better be called realm routed request report).
>>
>>
>>
>> Whether or not we need in addition to type 0 and type 1 (or as a
>> replacement of type 1) a
>> realm-no-matter-whether-destination-host-is present-or-not report
>> is an open issue (see #55).
>>
>> There are a lot of open questions  with regard to #55 and I have
>> not seen a conclusion.
>>
>> Where I have seen a conclusion is issue #34 and that is inline
>> with option 3).
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless we conclude on #55, or decide to re-open #34, option 3) is
>> what should go in the -02 draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext
>> Steve Donovan *Sent:* Monday, March 24, 2014 2:57 PM *To:*
>> dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> *Subject:* Re: [Dime]
>> Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich, All,
>>
>> We have two options for the -02 draft.
>>
>> 1) Support Host and Realm as proposed below, removing RRR reports.
>>  2) Support Host, Realm and RRR reports.
>>
>> The default plan is to go with option 1 in the -02 draft, as that
>> was the proposal that came out of the meeting in London.  RRR
>> reports can be added back in if and when we are convinced of the
>> need.
>>
>> If there are strong objections to this then I will update the -02
>> draft to reflect all three report types.
>>
>> I plan to make these updates Wednesday morning, Dallas, Texas
>> time.
>>
>> Either way I do not expect we will have agreed to wording on the
>> interaction between the report types when a reacting node has
>> multiple report types, all of which apply to individual requests.
>> This will need to be addressed in the -03 draft.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 3/21/14 4:05 PM, Steve Donovan wrote:
>>
>> Ulrich,
>>
>> The discussion should be captured in the minutes to the meeting.
>> I wasn't able to find them posted yet.
>>
>> Jouni, Lionel, what is the status of the minutes for the meeting?
>>
>> My reading of emails prior to the London meeting is different from
>> yours.  I believe we had come to the conclusion that we needed
>> host and realm (with the definition of realm as outlined below).
>> We were still discussing the need for Realm-Routed-Request
>> reports.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 3/21/14 10:09 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t know what happend in London.
>>
>> Can you please summarize the technical reasons that led to the
>> London agreement.
>>
>> E-mail discussions prior to London have clearly directed towards a
>> report type that requests throttling of realm routed request
>> messages (i.e. not containing a destination host) rather than a
>> report type that requests throttling of messages routed towards a
>> realm (no matter whether they contain a destination host or not).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext
>> Steve Donovan *Sent:* Friday, March 21, 2014 3:33 PM *To:*
>> dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> *Subject:* [Dime] Resolution
>> on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Ben and I took the action item to discuss the need for the
>> Realm-Routed-Reports (RRR) report type.
>>
>> As you may recall, the consensus coming out of the DIME WG meeting
>> in London was to support two report types:
>>
>> - Host -- Impacting requests with a Destination-Host AVP matching
>> the host in the overload report (with the host implicitly
>> determined from the Origin-Host AVP of the answer message carrying
>> the overload report).
>>
>> - Realm -- Impacting 100% of the requests with a Destination-Realm
>> AVP matching the realm in the overload report (with the realm
>> implicitly determine from the Origin-Realm of the answer message
>> carrying the overload report).
>>
>> The action Ben and I took was to come back with an opinion on
>> whether RRR reports should also be supported.
>>
>> My summary of the discussion is that we recommend to NOT include
>> RRR reports in the current version of the base DOIC draft.
>>
>> We still have some concerns with the granularity of control
>> enabled by having just the two report types but the analysis of
>> whether RRR reports are still needed can occur independent of the
>> base DOIC draft.  If there is a determination that RRRs are needed
>> in time to include in the base draft then it can be considered at
>> that time.
>>
>> Based on this, I propose the following
>>
>> - Resolution to issue #23 is to remove RRR reports from the
>> document. - Resolution to issue #55 is to add Realm reports
>> (actually to redefine them per the above definition). - Resolution
>> to issue #57 is that it no longer applies (as it deals with RRRs).
>>
>> There is also need for text describing the interaction between
>> host and the realm reports.  I don't expect we will have consensus
>> on this wording prior to the -02 draft being submitted.  To this
>> end, I'll open a new issue to deal with the need for wording on
>> the interaction.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> DiME mailing list
>>
>> DiME@ietf.org <mailto:DiME@ietf.org>
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a
>> l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange
>> decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
>> ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should
>> not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you
>> have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered,
>> Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed
>> or falsified. Thank you.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur
> et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
> responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.
> Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have
> received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange
> is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or
> falsified. Thank you.