Re: [Dime] Issue #23 Proposed resolution

Steve,

The discussion started around some proposed use cases by Ulrich, and to my knowledge that discussion is not concluded.
Then we have not agreed (at least yet) on having a differentiation between realm and realm-routed.
Even more, as far as I understand the proposal it is related to the ability (by agent) to select the a server (in a farm, providing service to a realm) for new session establishment. This is something we discussed long time ago, and at that point in time we tend to agree that it was not required, but up to different applications to decide based on realm overload.
Enhancements could be done on top of this, but first we need to agree on the basic use cases.

I hope this clarifies
Cheers
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 20:40
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #23 Proposed resolution

Maria Cruz,

I thought you had asserted that there was a 3GPP requirement to have the ability to have a realm report that control the total amount of traffic sent to a realm.  There is certainly an IETF DOC requirement to this effect.

The proposal is to have three report types (or four depending on the resolution of the per client host report discussion).

- Host report - Apply to all requests sent to a host.  The host is indicated by the origin-host AVP in the answer message carrying the report.  Can be generated by a server or by an agent acting as a front-end to a group of servers.

- Realm-routed-request report - Applies to all requests sent to a realm without a destination-host AVP in the request message.  Can be generated by a server or by an agent acting as a front-end to a group of servers.

- Realm report - Applies to all requests sent to the realm, independent of the presence or absence of a destination-host AVP in the request message.  Can be generated by a server or an agent.  The method for determining the realm state is out of scope for the DOIC document.

Steve
On 2/24/14 1:12 PM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
Hello,

I do not think we have agreed so far on the need to have two different reports (so called realm-routed and just realm).
Regards
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 18:44
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] Issue #23 Proposed resolution

I propose the following resolution for issue 23:

Proposal - Change the name of realm report.

Proposed name - "Realm-Routed-Request" report.

Proposal - Update all discussion on "Realm-Routed-Request" reports to indicate that they apply only to requests targeted to a realm when there is no destination-host AVP in the request.  Specifically, section 4.6 requires updating.

There is also a proposal to add a new report type to handle all transactions to a realm.  This is addressed by ticket number 55.

Regards,

Steve

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime