IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Proposed Example Text for draft-docdt-dime-ovli-01

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 2DDEE1ADFEC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 qmylDVZT78wD for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x233.google.com (mail-bk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D541AE001 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 6so3434891bkj.38 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ecnfkAsbxSPY6yAdryrblPRy0xPdMV0pERmKKOdmoiY=; b=zraR9aYfgDAl9lE3zsCKyJz5Hn0s2OX7h1gA37VYMC8ITyOHnemZvZ/gNL9F9BWV7y h1qI6USOW6ooAweJjexi1uQ/pWgBaZlftFSviD9F32l9vYEKteMSEcuYw/czMP9+N4wv w7DOD55T6289wHwvqtq/FLunqe1CnN8recHpV6pnXbHdBeS98YlL1jOy98WeuoxbkYQx 1eG8JEN/KLSZkgoZsv7IfDRbkJXxGf9AAKqxgTTdsoDggC1s213AeRljAqUbyMwpcN/6 +0xTWW6qvcv5jcWJT5cL999Z1fv2T3BFLu/B8gzVxsyI4aWRxvx7aLeRPM2vQrtShE8p yGpw==
X-Received: by 10.205.10.132 with SMTP id pa4mr31769497bkb.15.1385585412272; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:d19b:c774:a33a:9f41? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:d19b:c774:a33a:9f41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t2sm56859956bkh.3.2013.11.27.12.50.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9CFD23C3-AA49-4177-A393-731E86BB6753@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:50:08 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <57F6F16D-78AF-4A2F-9639-E9D98442E572@gmail.com>
References: <66DEB166-8DEB-42CA-A46E-8128F0D0900B@nostrum.com> <4CFE9D80-E25A-4B8F-96D1-EB7C21F2F11A@nostrum.com> <9AC5C876-99AD-4C43-9B13-3288C76459FB@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519BAB8@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <9CFD23C3-AA49-4177-A393-731E86BB6753@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Proposed Example Text for draft-docdt-dime-ovli-01
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 20:50:15 -0000

On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jouni,
>> 
>> with regard to 2) I agree with Ben and you.
>> 
>> For 3) I find it beneficial to distinguish between a) an Overload Report that requests a traffic reduction for traffic destined to a specific Host and b) an Overload Report that requests a traffic reduction for traffic to (an unspecified Host within) a specific Realm. 
>> It may however be possible to implicitly derive the ReportType (Host or Realm) from the presence/absence of a Destination Host in the corresponding request message. That means: only one OLR in an anwer, no explicit ReportType in the OLR. I think this proposal is more inline with the end-point concept.
> 
> 
> Why is that beneficial? It means that the responding node has to refer back to the original request to determine the meaning of an OLR in an answer. That creates a lot more work and implementation complexity than you would have if we put the ReportType in the OLR itself. it also puts unnecessary constraints on when a reporting node can send the ORL in the first place.

Good point.

- Jouni




>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email