Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Hello Ulrich,

I haven't proposed to limit this to host type OLR, I just wanted to clarify if this is what JJ got in mind.

I agree it could be done as you explained in the example below, but the open question is whether it is better to add an AVP when OLR is just meant for one single client, or on the contrary the agent _always_ need to bind OLR to one specific client, even if the server simply requires same OLR for any client. 

I think having a new AVP simplifies agent behavior.

Best regards
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com] 
Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 14:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; dime@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Hi MCruz,
there is no reason to limit this to host type OLRs.

If we have an agent A that is configured to take the role of the reporting node for realm-type reports for realm R, A could receive host type OLRs from servers S1 and S2 (e.g. S1 requesting 10% reduction from C1 and 20% reduction from C2, S2 requesting 30% reduction from C1 and 40% reductin from C2); A then would aggregate these info and return realm type OLRs to C1 requesting 20% reduction of traffic from C1 to R, and to C2 requesting 30% reduction of traffic from C2 to R.

Best regards
Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:02 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Hello JJ and all,

As per email thread, the latest proposal is:
"When an agent takes the role of a reacting node, the agent needs to bind a received OLR to the origin host of the client that initiated the request which corresponds to the answer containing the OLR." 

An Ulrich comments on this:
"This would cover not only the case where an agent takes the role of the reacting node on behalf of a (or several) non supporting client, but also the case where an agent is configured to take the role of a reporting node (for realm-type reports) towards the client and at the same time the role of a reacting node towards the server."

Is your proposal limited to Host-OLR, i.e. Realm OLR is excluded? 
Best regards
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 13:43
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Hi Mcruz and all

I think that you are  mixing the case of the DA that is the "reporting" node which wants to indicate a realm OLR to clients, and for which will use various (non standardized ) ways to determine among which it can reuse the Host-OLR AVPs received from various servers. But in this case, clients receiving realm OLRs are supporting DOIC. 
Here I understand the on going  discussion is about the DA behavior when  clients is not supporting DOIC and to reuse the Host-OLR received for one client for other clients  .

For me I remain on  my previous mail, with a baseline solution. We may always study new extensions, optimizations, but priority should be on the baseline.

Best regards

Jacques 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome Envoyé : lundi 24 février 2014 13:21 À : dime@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Hello all,

Not sure we all have the same understanding here.
Let me try to explain my concerns.

The original 3GPP requirement we want to cover is the need for a server to reduce traffic for one specific client, i.e. traffic identified by "Origin-Host" in the request.
Then, two options are under analysis about whether or not the OLR in the server answer shall be marked:

a) OLR does not need to include anything else Receiver of the answer (and OLR) is the client that sends the request, identified by "Origin-Host" in the request.
Then, as long as the reacting node=="Origin-Host", the expected reduction is performed and requirement fulfilled.
But, when an agent is acting on behalf of a client as the reacting node, then the "Origin-Host" identifies final client, but not the reacting node.
Then, this is why the proposal is to add following clarification about agent behavior (possible clause 5.5):
"When an agent takes the role of a reacting node, the agent needs to bind a received OLR to the origin host of the client that initiated the request which corresponds to the answer containing the OLR."
But this will imply that _always_ the reacting node applies this OLR to one specific client, what is not what we need to achieve.
How will this impact the case where the agent is providing access to a Realm? E.g. C1 and C2 accesses RealmX (S1 + S2) via Agent1. Let's consider following example:
- C1 sends a Realm request via Agent, that finally reaches S1
- S1 answers with OLR (Host:50%).
- Agent is acting as reacting node on behalf of C1, if it considers this OLR only bind to C1... then... should it consider S1-OLR only as relevant for requests coming from C1? Should agent do not use this S1-OLR to calculate aggregated Realm overload?
In my opinion, in this case it does not make sense to consider OLR was only meant to C1. And this problem could be solved adding explicit information, as in b) below.

b) OLR needs to be extended (new AVP) that identifies the client ("Origin-Host" in the request) from which traffic reduction shall apply.
With this new AVP, reacting node will easy be able to identify when OLR shall be applied to any client or just to the Origin-Host identified by new AVP.

Let me know your opinions please
Best regards
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: lunes, 24 de febrero de 2014 12:28
To: ext Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Steve,

please see inline.

Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:53 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

Ulrich,

I have a couple of concerns with this approach, as currently outlined.  

First, how do we handle the case where there are multiple DOIC supporting agents between the non supporting client and the reporting node.  This, I guess, is a general question, not just applying to this proposal.  I suggest we capture in the agent behavior section that is currently missing wording indicating that the first supporting agent that receives the request must be the reacting node for that non-supporting client.  Subsequent DOIC supporting agents must not be the reacting node for the non-supporting client.
<Ulrich>I fully agree</Ulrich>

We need to think through the ramifications of having multiple agents being the reacting node for the same non supporting clients, as this could easily happen in networks where multiple agents are involved in a single transaction.  On the surface it doesn't seem to be an issue for the loss algorithm, but this might not be the case with other algorithms.
<Ulrich>I agree that this is not an issue for loss; it is an issue e.g. for rate (i.e. for draft-donovan-dime-doc-rate-control)</Ulrich>

My other concern is that this puts a lot of extra onus on the agent even for the case where the reporting node does not want to differentiate overload reports.
<Ulrich> I agree </Ulrich>
To this end I suggest we add an indication in the OLR marking the reports that are specific to just the Origin-Host in the request.  Absence of the "single-client-only" AVP would mean that the report applies to all clients.  Presence of the AVP would indicate that the OLR applies to the Origin-Host.
<Ulrich>I understand that the proposal is an optimization for agents. Therefore the semantics of the marking should be reverse: unmarked OLRs are client specific, marked OLRs indicate that the reporting node does not want to differentiate, and therefore allow agents not to do the binding to the client.</Ulrich>     

Steve
On 2/21/14 4:48 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Ben,

the proposed conclusion was based on comments received so far (from Lionel, Nirav, Steve, MCruz, JJ). 
Now you seem to address two points:
a) There is no dependency to DOIC support of the client.
To address this I would like to propose rewording of the clarifying text for 5.5. as follows:

When an agent takes the role of a reacting node, the agent needs to bind a received OLR to the origin host of the client that initiated the request which corresponds to the answer containing the OLR. 

This would cover not only the case where an agent takes the role of the reacting node on behalf of a (or several) non supporting client, but also the case where an agent is configured to take the role of a reporting node (for realm-type reports) towards the client and at the same time the role of a reacting node towards the server.

b) There is no binding of the OLR to the orig-host of the client Here I disagree. We have the 3GPP requirement to allow requesting different amount of reduction from different clients, and I think we have 3 options:
1. ignore the 3GPP requirement
2. introduce new report types as originally proposed in #35 3. introduce the binding between OLR and orig-host of the client.

So far I understood that people favoured option 3.