Re: [Dime] [dime] #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Ulrich,

For the following:

---

We also have proposed wording on the interaction between these report types.  

<Ulrich> can you please remind me what that proposed wording is. My current understanding is that there is no interaction between these two report types</Ulrich>

--- 

I agree with you that there is no interaction between the host reports
and "realm-routed" reports (or what ever we end up calling them).

Steve
 
On 2/21/14 1:07 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Steve,
>
> see inline.
> Ulrich
>
> From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:54 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload
>
> We've had a lot of discussion of this topic.
>
> I believe that we reached agreement that we currently have two types of reports:
>
> - Host report that applies to requests sent to a destination-host
> - Realm report that applies requests routed to a realm that do not have a specified destination-host (realm-routed requests)
>
> <Ulrich> I agree</Ulrich>
>
> We also have proposed wording on the interaction between these report types.  
>
> <Ulrich> can you please remind me what that proposed wording is. My current understanding is that there is no interaction between these two report types</Ulrich>
>
> I propose that the second be renamed to realm-routed reports.
>
> <Ulrich> no strong view, but my preference is in favour of "absent-host reports"</Ulrich>
>
> A separate ticket has been opened on the need for a third report type that would apply to all request routed to a realm, independent of whether a request contains a destination-host AVP.
> <Ulrich> I understand that this is #55</Ulrich>
>
> Steve
> On 1/21/14 9:24 AM, dime issue tracker wrote:
> #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload
>
>  This applies to draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01, which does not show up in the
>  Component drop down menu.
>
>  The current assumption in the -01 draft is inconsistent in the definition
>  of behavior of behavior by a reacting node when it receives a realm
>  overload report.
>
>  Section 4.6 says overload treatment should apply to all request bound for
>  the overloaded realm.
>
>  Section 5.5.2 is not clear and there have been interpretations that a
>  realm overload report only applies to requests that contain the realm and
>  do not contain a destination-host AVP.
>
>  Section 5.5.2 should be updated to be consistent with section 4.6.
>
>