[Dime] Questions on draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-06.txt
Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 13:19 UTC
Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D11112D90F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 wmbCrNE2cOz5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [66.117.3.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CBC12D1B9 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 06:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.31.33.3] (port=60890 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1ao9qd-0017yL-Oz for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 06:19:50 -0700
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <57065E70.3030908@usdonovans.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:19:44 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040309090706090201030605"
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 - 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
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/RgSIb79tM4lxTRdlh8fBADSOR3I>
Subject: [Dime] Questions on draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-06.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:19:54 -0000
All, I have the following questions and comments on the Diameter group signaling draft. Regards, Steve ----- General comment - Use of RFC 2119 is not consistent. There are a number of places where lower case must is used, for instance. It would be better to either make those upper case, if that is appropriate, or use a different word. In section 4.2.* For the case: If the Diameter server receives a command request from a Diameter client and the command comprises at least one Session-Group-Info AVP having the SESSION_GROUP_ALLOCATION_ACTION flag set in the Session- Group-Control-Vector AVP set, the server can accept or reject the request for group assignment. Reasons for rejection may be e.g. lack of resources for managing additional groups. When rejected, the session must not be assigned to any session group but be treated as single session. Should we say the the client SHOULD retry the request without the session-group AVPs? For the case: If the Diameter server accepts the client's request for a group assignment, the server must assign the new session to each of the one or multiple identified session groups when present in the Session- Group-Info AVP. In case one or multiple identified session groups are not already stored by the server, the server must store the new identified group(s) to its local list of known session groups. When sending the response to the client, e.g. a service-specific auth response as per NASREQ AA-Answer [RFC4005], the server must include all Session-Group-Info AVPs as received in the client's request. What if one of a set of session group addition commands fails at the server? Is it all or nothing, meaning that if the server can't add the session to all requested session groups then it must reject the request? Also, should the first must in the paragraph be MUST? For the case: If the Diameter client receives a response to its previously issued request from the server and the response comprises at least one Session-Group-Info AVP having the SESSION_GROUP_ALLOCATION_ACTION flag of the associated Session-Group-Control-Vector AVP set, the client MUST add the new session to all session groups as identified in the one or multiple Session-Group-Info AVPs. What if the a session group addition fails at the client? Should the client terminate the session at that point for force the session-group state in sync? For this case: A Diameter client, which sent a request for session initiation to a Diameter server and appended a single or multiple Session-Group-Id AVPs but cannot find any Session-Group-Info AVP in the associated response from the Diameter server proceeds as if the request was processed for a single session. Does the client continue to include Session-Group AVPs or should the client explicitly remove the session from the session group? In section 4.4.1 The use of the Group-Response-Action AVP is not clear. Why would a node put a session in a group and then request it to be treated separately? It would help to have some motivational text for why this is needed. In section 4.4.3 For the case: When a Diameter node receives a request to process a command for one or more session groups and the result of processing the command succeeds for some sessions identified in one or multiple session groups, but fails for one or more sessions, the Result-Code AVP in the response message SHOULD indicate DIAMETER_LIMITED_SUCCESS as per Section 7.1.2 of [RFC6733]. In case of limited success, the sessions, for which the processing of the group command failed, MUST be identified using a Failed-AVP AVP as per Session 7.5 of [RFC6733]. What happens to the groups that were successfully set up? Should the client fall back to single session in this case as well? For section 5 I'm not convinced that the signaling, as defined is complete enough to ensure that a proxy can be guaranteed to have accurate session-group state. For the same reason, it also feels like clients and servers can end up with different views of session-group state.
- [Dime] Questions on draft-ietf-dime-group-signali… Steve Donovan