[Dime] Draft IETF#84 meeting minutes
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Sun, 12 August 2012 20:47 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DB321F85E3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72Iw04rQxTs6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE00021F85E0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so788888eek.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=ZhwdowLEmcRg5sgues2+Jg5D3XNko89Lt719PTl8W7I=; b=aCY8Iq5KMHjQu4toBiHopg0sBr9PORGfhQT3yTlCW5A6W/Z05trVjeKtVFWxShriJD CaSIOmnF9/q/g1BBduNneA1qdWKlwb98sKH8T2YmkiBthYZyf+Q9UDRXgSE8zxwt65cG BASRMTnn7qc85aXBeFuwOnh+SU7d22lINS22rgLdBbSlw4AxUIssxApzV0XBNpH5Amr4 oLcNxrtJUj6UqAnAbD/uIKbmKghW/yBHlf951nPy0IXmiBWV7XwU/LhiWix2Xz3euiOb R5mBW/XBmOeCvonJ45Yo/Sic76+gnyzq6UE2cF0GiK4UVQa+I9EqWDrbJ81SZu3qZG0X J/+Q==
Received: by 10.14.215.193 with SMTP id e41mr2120883eep.44.1344804453911; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 45sm13393111eed.17.2012.08.12.13.47.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:47:32 +0300
Message-Id: <56E8263E-D647-454F-99D8-E90E9886D420@gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [Dime] Draft IETF#84 meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:47:36 -0000
Folks, Have a look at the draft minutes. There are few "???"s regarding who gave comments. It would be nice to have those filled with correct names. Thanks a bunch to Jane for taking excellent minutes. - JOuni ---------------------------- Minutes of the DIME WG meeting at IETF 84 Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I, Georgia A Administrivia =========================== Presenters: Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand - Note well presented - Note taker: Jean Mahoney - Jabber scribe: Tom Taylor == Working Group Status Update == Presenters: Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand WG Documents: - draft-ietf-dime-erp - proto writeup - another draft - draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide - if wg agrees, move to wglc - draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect - discuss here - reissue for wglc - draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling - at an early stage A list of documents that have dependencies on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis was presented. Benoit Claise, OPS area director: A new version of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr has been posted. One author has removed himself from the author list. However, there's a copyright issue and the author needs to be acknowledged. Marco, what do you want? Marco Liebsch: If someone should be acknowledged, then add them to the Acknowledgement section. My name isn't in the latest, keep as-is. Benoit: If the text that Marco contributed is gone, then we don't have an issue. Marco: It has been removed. Benoit: No issue then. It is to the main author (Glen Zorn) to acknowledge or not. == Charter update == - Removed mib docs due to lack of interest. Realm based redirect================ draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect Presenter: Tom Taylor == Issue: Redirect Agent versus Server == Redirect agents don't have application-specific behavior. Redirection must be performed by the application at a server, and only a proxy or client can reroute based on the response. Does anyone have issues with changing from redirect agent to server? Lionel: Clarify what a proxy can do. Clarify new requests versus redirect. This is on the right path, but more information needs to be added. == Issue: handling of request with Destination-Host AVP == Destination-Host AVP is normally added to requests only subsequent to the initial request of the session. The Destination-Host AVP is incompatable with realm-based redirection. However, the Destination-Host will be there because you are in the middle of the session rather than at the beginning. The application can specify that it only applies to initial requests, so it's not disruptive to current requests. Lionel: Is there a use case where you would redirect midsession? If not, just remove info on the Destination-Host AVP. It's a blocking point. <No comments from the room> ACTION to working group: Please comment on the mailing list on whether we need to support mid-session realm-based redirection. Tom Taylor took an action on himself to clean up the text about the proxy behavior. Next version of the document will be out this week or next. Design Guidelines ============== draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide Presenter: Lionel Morand Lionel presented changes to the document since version -14. Lionel feels that the document is finished, and is planning a WGLC in August. ACTION to the working group: Please provide feedback. Ben Campbell: RFC3588bis recommends TLS and DTLS, does providing IPsec recommendations violate that part of RFC3588bis? Lionel: The IPsec text was originally in RFC3588. It has been removed from RFC3588bis and added to the design guide. Ben: But isn't using IPsec a deployment decision? Lionel: It's a design decision, you can specify the transport when you design the application. Group signaling =============== draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling Presenter: Marco Liebsch Marco presented two different approaches to manipulating groups of sessions: - Dedicated group commands - do not contain the same AVPs as their non-group equivalents - new commands are defined for each group operation - new Application-Id - pros: straightforward, low-level of ambiguity - cons: new commands and formats needed for all bulk-enabled commands; proxy needs to be aware of the new application - Bulk operation command - a single Diameter command for bulk operations - applies to existing Diameter commands that handle single sessions - pros: no new formats or codes needed - cons: Session-Id AVP needs to be ignored or used to carry group ID; proxy needs to be aware of the new application; potential issue with mandatory attributes in the body when they apply to a single session Lionel: There's no way to know that dedicated group commands are for a group Marco: There is a new application in the header, a new command code, and the Session-Group-Id AVP. Lionel: For example, only thing that GRAR has in common with RAR is the Re-Auth-Request-Type. Except the name, there's nothing in common with the original command. There is nothing here that says you have to do something else here. Lionel: For the bulk operation command, the RAR command code is reused, you can rely on this to know what to do. Marco: From an implementation perspective, it's not hard to link a new GRAR to the RAR state machine. Lionel: Different state machines? Marco: Yes, it varies. Lionel: You'll have same command code but with different state machines and ABNF. Marco: The mandatory fields differ. Jouni: We're modifying current ABNF. Something is not clear and is against existing RFCs. Next steps: Soliciting input on formatting, design update draft in August Lionel: For a minimal impact on existing applications, just add group AVPs. The only new information is the two new AVPs (Session-Group-id, Session-Group-Action). What if we added these AVPs and created a new application? Can reuse for any command. Jouni: An optional AVP, but there's another issue - you don't know if the other end is supporting it. Need to negotiate capabilities. Lionel: Create a new application, have capabilities exchange. Or use optional AVP and advertise support. Adam: Capabilities exchange only works between adjacent nodes. Each node in path will have to support it. I would prefer not to define new applications. Work here can be reused for overload. Lionel: The only way to avoid new applications is to use optional AVPs. Adam: Yes, I would prefer that. Glen: Capabilities are pair-wise, they don't go forward. It's just an advertisement, it's not negotiated. Adam: We're not creating groups and then adding sessions to them. We're adding existing sessions to groups. Right? <missed Lionel's response> Marco: Individual Session-Id is carried but ignored. ???: This could be a new session. Unless there's a reason to limit to existing sessions, it should apply to both. Mark Jones: (from the chat room) About end-end negotiation, groups are always assigned at session creation. ACTION to working group: discuss on the mailing list. Diameter Overload Control ================== Overload control justification and use cases Presenter: Martin Dolly Martin Dolly presented reasons for Diameter overload control. Glen Zorn asked for clarification of 3GPP terms since it shouldn't be assumed that participants are familiar with them. Benoit: What are you asking for with this presentation? Martin: AT&T and other operators see a need to support a diameter overlaod mechanism to alleviate problems identified here. Glen: I want to be convinced why this is the IETF's problem. Inadequate capacity or poor network planning is not our problem. Ben: The next presentation will say how this is a IETF problem. Peak loads are many orders of magnetude above regular load. If you provision for that, everyone pays more. Adam: It's like saying that TCP congestion isn't a problem. It's bursty, it can pile up, the network will exceed capacity. Need to make sure it doesn't melt down. Martin: We need a resilient network. This is like SIP overload. AT&T initiated the SIP overload work. We want a generic solution across the diameter interfaces. ??: My company thinks the IETF has the expertise and wants the IETF to do this work. Tom Taylor: Bursts happen. Something has to be done. Jouni: The operators have been kind enough to ask us to work on it. Jin Rong, ATT: The problem is in the base protocol. Handling it in the protocol is the most efficient way to handle it. Otherwise we don't have a tool to solve this problem. draft-mcmurry-dime-overload-reqs ============ Presenter: Eric McMurry Eric's presentation on Diameter overload control requirements was cut short due to running out of time. Eric: The point of the presentation is to get people interested, and it should be handled in the base protocol. There's a draft out there of requirements. We want to get agreement on that before working on a mechanism. Next steps: is the problem real and worth working on? Does the work belong in dime? Ben: We don't expect the doc to be perfect, don't know if the requirements are all there. Is the dime working group the right place? Mark Jones: Yes, it's real, and worth working on. It fits the charter. Martin: ATT supports this and would love to see this in the wg. Geller (??): We support this. John Kaippallimalil from Huawei CRO (3gpp core network overload): We support this, too. Tom Taylor: I support it. Lionel (as an individual): We see this problem in multiple protocols. We need to identify problems with the existing specification. What's missing, unclear? Have requirements to fill the gap. Extend the base protocol? Or create a new application? Jouni (as an individual): This is a real problem, need to work on it (commented already few points on email earlier), need a solution. Ben: We agree that requirements come first. It's been controversial for every working group that faces it. Benoit (as AD): I'm pleased that operators come here. I believe there's support. You might ask who opposes. Who will work on it? Jouni: anyone against? <silence> Who will work on it: <multiple hands raised> Benoit: There's support. Create a problem statement and then requirements? Jouni (ind): Problem statements are waste of time. Add a paragraph in the requirements doc. Lionel: More than one paragraph. Have one document that explains what's missing in Diameter and provides a set of requirements. Jouni: Anyone aganist adoption? <silence> ACTION for Jouni: To ask the working group about adoption. Ben: If the wg adopts, we'll adjust for consensus. Benoit: Don't have to hurry on deciding that it fits the charter. Lionel: We need to first agree that we will work on it. Martin: You need to hurry on deciding to work on it, otherwise ATT/VZW/TMO - 40% of LTE deployment - will ask our vendors to work on non-standard solutions. Lionel: This document is not blocked on whether it fits the charter.
- [Dime] Draft IETF#84 meeting minutes jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Draft IETF#84 meeting minutes Ben Campbell