IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 D322B1A025F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:13:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 9RqHoMhaoPzK for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786611A0250 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:49228 helo=SDmac.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WFQoq-0002fv-Fe; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:13:24 -0800
Message-ID: <5302351F.6050902@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:13:19 -0600
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <066.b54c2f5aeb31c9b3f88c96008120290d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D202663C4A@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209772EF4@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <19874_1392116210_52FA01F2_19874_3990_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E499C4E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209773085@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <52FA3CC6.905020 5@usdonovans.com> <17910_1392132298_52FA40CA_17910_2863_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E49A28D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <11546_1392132645_52FA4225_11546_3173_1_0aa80fb0-8382-459e-aebf-2ee5d5f70edc@PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026644D6@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <D2D4DD91-8F3D-4C24-9E3A-E2AE3918D468@gmail.com> <52FCBBF7.7000700@usdonovans.com> <D4BE67F7-6D7B-4DB2-8DF0-D430A8FC6582@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D4BE67F7-6D7B-4DB2-8DF0-D430A8FC6582@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090500070603070303040602"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/HklDU0JW5nXqMCm2x12BiljYQHI
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
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: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:13:31 -0000

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> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email