Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

It shouldn't be much work to add realm overload to the draft.  We would
need to do the following (at a minimum):

- Change that name of the current realm report to something like
"realm-routed".
- Create a new report type of name realm that applies to all traffic
routed to the realm.
- Add a few words in the reporting node section about generation of
realm reports.
- Define the interaction between realm, realm-routed and host report
types.  This is probably the most difficult part that is likely to
require some discussion.

Other then the section on interactions between report types, I don't
think this impacts the existing text so it should fold in pretty cleanly.

I'd be happy to take the first shot at this to be included in the -02
version of the draft if there is consensus to add it.

Steve

On 2/18/14 4:11 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>  
>
> Overload of the realm is one of the use cases that is required by 3GPP
> applications.
>
> And I think this should be part of the basic mechanism, or?
>
>  
>
> Best regards
>
> /MCruz
>
>  
>
> *From:*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *TROTTIN,
> JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
> *Sent:* lunes, 17 de febrero de 2014 18:53
> *To:* dime@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
>
>  
>
> Hi
>
>  
>
> I share the view to analyze the overload of the realm as a whole in a
> separate extension  and see if this lead to another report type.
>
>  
>
> Best regards
>
>  
>
> JJacques
>
>   
>
>  
>
> *De :*DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Steve Donovan
> *Envoyé :* lundi 17 février 2014 17:13
> *À :* Ben Campbell
> *Cc :* dime@ietf.org <mailto:dime@ietf.org> list
> *Objet :* Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
>
>  
>
> I do think it would be a new report type, as it would require
> different behavior from reacting nodes.
>
> I'm ok with this being in a separate extension if the group thinks
> this is the correct approach.  We are creating a good number of
> relatively small extensions.  It might lead to the need to pull them
> all together in a future version of the DOIC draft/RFC.
>
> Steve
>
> On 2/14/14 4:21 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>     (Apologies for coming late to this thread)
>
>      
>
>     On Feb 13, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> <mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
>
>      
>
>         Ok, Ok, no reason to gang up on me. :-)
>
>         What we have here is an overload report to reduce realm routed requests.  I think we should be explicit in the draft to define it as such.
>
>          
>
>      
>
>     At the risk of joining the anti-Steve gang, I feel the need to belatedly mention that my personal intent way back when we talked about the mixed-state problem was that realm reports applied to realm-routed requests. 
>
>      
>
>         I am still concerned that we do not have a way to indicate overload of the realm as a whole.  I'll enter a new trouble ticket to capture this issue.
>
>          
>
>      
>
>     I do not object to adding that ability. Would it be a new OLR type? If so, would it need to go in the base draft or could it be an extension?
>
>      
>
>         Steve
>
>      
>
>      
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime