[Dime] DOIC: Proposed resolution to issue #35

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Fri, 02 May 2014 13:23 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 B4F7F1A6F1A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 06:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
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_40=-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 MLKJcxO-EKbc for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 06:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.197.190]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5851A081E for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2014 06:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:56001 helo=SDmac.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WgDRB-0005u7-PI for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 02 May 2014 06:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <53639C5B.1060902@usdonovans.com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 08:23:39 -0500
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010107030607040806050506"
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/PIAr3JLOC6hTF15kfJ1BKfeyATg
Subject: [Dime] DOIC: Proposed resolution to issue #35
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: Fri, 02 May 2014 13:23:42 -0000

All,

I believe that we reached consensus on issue #35 (client specific
overload reports) that this functionality should be deferred to a follow
on extension.

To this end, I propose adding the following to appendix A:

A.4 Client specific overload reports

This specification assumes that a reporting node sends a single overload
report to all reacting nodes.  This proposed extension would allow a
reporting node to send different overload reports, with different
reduction percentages (assuming the loss algorithm) to individual clients.

If we have agreement on this text, I'll add it to the -03 version of the
spec and close this issue.

Regards,

Steve