IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 16 December 2013 21:32 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 0D1C11AD942 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:32:00 -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 yMiUV0910Beu for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:31:59 -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 220AE1AD8EC for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:31:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.10.7] (mobile-166-147-068-041.mycingular.net [166.147.68.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rBGLVr7f096770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:31:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D31B94@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:31:48 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D5125BF8-B82D-4FA5-9852-054E04082573@nostrum.com>
References: <832D36A4-E2D5-4640-A8D5-F9B3EEDBC56A@nostrum.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2582D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <52A088D0.2020406@usdonovans.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D25A08@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <52A091CE.2000104@usdonovans.com> <13081_1386256433_52A09831_13081_8197_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF! 731D84412 2B36E32B6EB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209739738@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <D3716AC2-10E5-4E7C-95A1-87BCAA88CFE9@gmail.com> <8FD63E2D-5203-4DA4-A6DA-C4CA181C9CFB@nostrum.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C1D786@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB4AA4@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <52A86663.30500@usdonovans.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB4BC7@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920973A82A@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <52A8B862.5040207@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920973AAF5@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <52! A9BE1F.7020201@usdonovans.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D31B94@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 166.147.68.41 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:32:00 -0000

On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) <nsalot@cisco.com> wrote:

> As already indicated earlier, by many of us, handling of application-Y's data in the application-X's message is not how the Diameter applications are designed today. And hence this type of proposal requires architectural support for handling it. And there lies the complexity.
> This main drawback was highlighted earlier as well but was conveniently ignored while preparing the pros and cons list for the self-contained OLR.
>  

As I have argued in the past, I don't think overload reports are application data. They are protocol data.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email