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

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

All,

I was on jury duty yesterday so I wasn't able to fully engage.

I agree that we are close to resolving issues and I will produce an 
updated draft that addresses IESG review comments, along with one change 
requested by IANA.

I also need to respond to Ben's last email.

My proposal, modulo Ben's comments, is to add the following to the draft:

- Emphasizing that the mechanism only works when one of the following is 
true:

   - Agents only handle a single DRMP application.
   - All Diameter applications that support DRMP used in a Diameter 
network must have consistent and synchronized priority definitions. I'll 
add some words around what is meant by consistent and synchronized.

- Strengthening wording indicating that this mechanism is designed to 
work in trusted environments.  This includes recommending stripping or 
modifying priority settings for requests received from untrusted 
sources.  The determination of what is a trusted and untrusted source 
would be out of the scope of the DRMP draft.

- Adding the other updates that have been agreed to as part of this 
review cycle.

This leaves as future work, should there be a need, the handling 
multiple "priority schemes" within a single network.  This is a very 
hard problem and not a use case that is currently needed by existing 
users of Diameter.

I'll wait for feedback, especially from the Dime working group, before I 
start updating the document.

Regards,

Steve

On 5/5/16 9:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Great. I think we're maybe at the point where pushing out a
> revised I-D that has the fixes we now know we want would be a
> good plan and then we can go back around the discuss holders
> and see where we're at.
>
> Make sense? If not, then please continue the discussion to
> get us there.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On 05/05/16 15:25, Steve Donovan wrote:
>> I'm okay with this addition.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On May 5, 2016 8:21:22 AM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 05/05/16 14:19, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>> I think the gap is in Section 5, where it should be noted that in
>>>> order for priority information to be reliably usable in the way that
>>>> use cases 5.1 and 5.2 call for, the Diameter nodes sending and
>>>> consuming it must have pre-established trust relationships of the
>>>> sort described in Section 11.
>>> Sounds reasonable to me. Authors?
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>