Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Gunn, Janet P" <Janet.Gunn@csra.com> Wed, 04 May 2016 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>
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 364A412D1E2; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TzNQuIQWKgsJ; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailport7.csra.com (mailport7.csra.com [131.131.97.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D647012D9D2; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from csrrdu1exm022.corp.csra.com (HELO mail.csra.com) ([10.8.2.22]) by mailport7.csra.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 04 May 2016 12:54:34 -0400
Received: from CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com (10.8.2.25) by CSRRDU1EXM028.corp.csra.com (10.8.2.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Wed, 4 May 2016 12:54:09 -0400
Received: from CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com ([10.8.2.25]) by CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com ([10.8.2.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Wed, 4 May 2016 12:54:09 -0400
From: "Gunn, Janet P" <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W0RpbWVdIE1pcmphIEvDvGhsZXdpbmQncyBEaXNjdXNzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWll?= =?utf-8?Q?tf-dime-drmp-05:_(with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHRpfX802HZewL1w0WTgzzKloaSGZ+o6eMAgAACTICAAATUAIAAKU2A///PyMCAAEZ/gP//zN+A
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:54:09 +0000
Message-ID: <ad2198b39b6d44cda95dba0d1c4d5b14@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com>
References: <20160504111323.8242.20592.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A8821F45-B9BA-4ACF-8EBF-01B64C100359@fastmail.fm> <B4F433FB-B2A2-4EDA-8ECF-5812BCB7517A@kuehlewind.net> <1462363396.2794286.597809745.0662E7A7@webmail.messagingengine.com> <033661D5-7963-4726-81C0-854E25C659D3@kuehlewind.net> <e6d1ab6472f14ec3b4b6b024563150ff@CSRRDU1EXM025.corp.csra.com> <F0C35A63-ADCA-4502-AC3B-C2DF5FA6EDFD@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <F0C35A63-ADCA-4502-AC3B-C2DF5FA6EDFD@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.136.2.8]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/ANZA1-d3FBaVgVgsl8H05_6_-Gs>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org>, "dime-chairs@ietf.org" <dime-chairs@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [Dime] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-d?= =?utf-8?q?ime-drmp-05=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 May 2016 16:59:22 -0000

Conceptually, that (2 queues) approach DOES correspond to assigning a default priority.

In that particular case, you are assigning the "unknown priority" messages to  particlar priority value( a value that is not used by the messages with "known priority") and then establishing a separate queue  for THAT priority value.

I am not sure whether it is a "good idea" or not, but it certainly fits within the constraints of a "default priority".

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 11:51 AM
To: Gunn, Janet P <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>fm>; draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org; dime-chairs@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Janet,

there are clearly more options than the two mention below.

E.g. one option is the one explained in my initial comment: hhaving two queues, that are both served with a certain rate.

I’m sure there are more (and potentially more complex) solutions to this problem as well.

Assigning an arbitrary priority is not the right option from my point of view and can actually hurt the systems.

Mirja

 
> Am 04.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Gunn, Janet P <Janet.Gunn@csra.com>om>:
> 
> My comment below.
> Janet
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org; dime-chairs@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Alexey,
> 
> see below.
> 
> The point is, if you explicitly indicate that you have a lower priority, you are okay to be starved. However, if you don’t indicate anything (maybe just because you have not been aware that it is possible to do so), you might have the same or even a higher priority, and in this case it’s not okay to be starved.
> 
> Mirja
> <JPG> If a message comes in without a priority, into a system which serves messages based on priority (regardless of the specific mechanisms)you have two options
> 1- Discard the message (Not a good idea in most systems)
> 2 - Assign the message an ARBITRARY priority (we call this arbitrary value the "default priority")
> 
> You can (and probably will) argue 'til the cows come home on what that arbitrary/default value SHOULD BE.  And different sytems/applications might have different "default values".
> 
> But I don't think there should be any argument that, if a message comes in without a priority, you need to assign it a priority.
> 
> </JPG>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA that may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact me immediately and be aware that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of content, this email shall not operate to bind CSRA to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of email for such purpose.