Re: [Dime] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with COMMENT)

Steve Donovan <> Tue, 10 May 2016 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D21B12D618; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVWM2aTP4ckl; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0BA12D5FF; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:60936 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1b0F0t-0032f2-51; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:16:20 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <>, Ben Campbell <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Steve Donovan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:16:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Cc:,,, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 21:16:22 -0000


Please see my comments inline.



On 5/8/16 7:09 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Ben,
>> I will jump in on one point, since this is related to the discussion 
>> on whether nodes need a common approach to selecting/interpreting 
>> priority values:
>> On 4 May 2016, at 12:02, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>> -
>>>  1.  Request sender - The sender of a request, be it a Diameter Client
>>>        or a Diameter Server, determines the relative priority of the
>>>        request and includes that priority information in the request.
>>> Question: what is the risk of DMRP ending up as the DSCP, i.e.
>>> Every end point changes the value to best service, and in the end, it's
>>> useless, and uniquely set by the operator.
>> I think there's a trusted network assumption here, which would 
>> include an assumption that trusted clients do not intentionally game 
>> the system. (in contrast with _accidentally_ gaming the system by 
>> using a different scheme to set priority values.)
>> However, I think that this sort of assumption should be explicitly 
>> mentioned. 
> I believe so.
>> IIRC, DOIC included some guidance about crossing trust boundaries; 
>> perhaps DRMP should do the same.
> Yes.
> That makes me think. I wonder how the following two statements are 
> interoperable?
>    Diameter nodes MUST have a default priority to apply to transactions
>    that do not have an explicit priority set in the DRMP AVP.
>    Diameter nodes SHOULD use the PRIORITY_10 priority as this default
>    value.
> Shouldn't the last SHOULD be a MUST?
SRD> The reason it is a SHOULD is to allow for an operator to define a 
priority scheme with a different value, much as you outline below.
> Let me explain: a Diameter node wants to send Diameter messages with 
> priority above average, so PRIORITY = 12 (because his default is 10). 
> Along the path (potentially crossing a boundary), a Diameter node 
> doesn't support the DRMP AVP. The next node, which does, sets his 
> default priority. The default priority on that node has been 
> configured as 13. And now, my Diameter messages will be treated as 
> below average.
> Do I miss anything?
SRD> Yes, as described, this would be an issue.  This is one of the 
reasons that the DISCUSS threads have focused on the need to emphasize 
that this mechanism only works if a consistent priority scheme is 
applied to all messages and that it only works within a trusted 
environment.  This implies that priority values received from other 
Diameter networks likely can't be trusted.

SRD> It may be necessary to add a requirement that the priority value 
MUST be the same for all nodes within the Diameter network using a 
defined priority scheme.
> Regards, Benoit
>> (And I guess that does make it a bit like DSCP ;-)  )
>> Ben.
>> .