Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E2C1AE15C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:49:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 yK-e2ImfZWxr for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF4C1AE15B for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rARMnPVT063676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:49:26 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <B1154CAE-28B5-4B4C-B0DA-5D56DBE1B655@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:49:24 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6EBE570-D94B-4E6C-8251-E08B9E4B4564@nostrum.com>
References: <832D36A4-E2D5-4640-A8D5-F9B3EEDBC56A@nostrum.com> <B1154CAE-28B5-4B4C-B0DA-5D56DBE1B655@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 27 Nov 2013 22:49:30 -0000

On Nov 27, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> The more I spent time thinking/writing the actual procedures on the endpoints,
> the more it makes sense to me to keep the ReportType in the OC-OLR. Even if the
> baseline does not have agent overload etc, the ReportType fits well to the
> "endpoint principle" we have in the draft. It indeed gives more tools to make
> a host vs. realm base decision on the reacting node and is plain more clear.
> 
> I skip the rest of the mail.. too much text ;-)
> 
> 

Heh. Okay, short version:

I think we should also include explicit values for things like Application, Realm, etc, in the OLR itself, where applicable. I'd like to have fully self-contained OLRs that do not depend on their enclosing Diameter message. For example, I might decide to save the OLR separately from the rest of the message, or I might want to send an OLR over some out-of-band mechanism (or perhaps a dedicated overload application ;-)  ) without having to define a new format.

I've got reasons, but you will have to read the long text for those :-)