Re: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Mon, 19 September 2016 17:01 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 3D91F12B461 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 k_uWpJsx4d2Q for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) (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 E8A1D12B45F for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-97-99-50-102.tx.res.rr.com ([97.99.50.102]:50848 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 1bm1x1-004LOf-Mu; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:01:56 -0700
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <17ea1d91-10e9-2431-d523-f3d63ee8233d@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B921A4ABD72@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <994653cb-5e59-9384-2447-315293a0a86d@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B921A4B0905@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Message-ID: <0fc3b83d-e9c8-7300-a124-e96980c0201e@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:01:51 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B921A4B0905@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
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 - 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
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/TXSE2ulLrY_YB08zBW4mWZ_Da1k>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion
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: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:01:58 -0000

Maria Cruz,

I think we are saying the same thing.  My original has an unfortunate 
typo and should have read as follows:

"The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the sending Diameter node's 
capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for the sending 
Diameter node."

In thinking about this, the word sending might also not be clear 
enough.  We might want to use the reporting node instead.  This would 
change it to the following:

"The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the reporting Diameter node's 
capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for the reporting 
Diameter node."

Regards,

Steve

On 9/2/16 4:56 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
> Hello Steve,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.
> I still think the text is a bit misleading:
>
> "The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the sending Diameter nodes
> capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for the sending
> Diameter node."
>
> I think it should be:
> "The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the sending Diameter node
> capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for a sending
> Diameter node."
>
> Reasoning: a node may have a very limited maximum capacity, but the key point is precisely to provide a LOAD value relative to the maximum value A node may have.
>
> I hope this clarifies
> Thanks
> /MCruz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com]
> Sent: martes, 30 de agosto de 2016 5:59
> To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion
>
> Maria Cruz,
>
> Thanks for your comments.  See my replies inline.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 8/25/16 5:31 PM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
>> Hello Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for the proposals, see below
>> Best regards
>> /MCruz
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
>> Sent: martes, 16 de agosto de 2016 16:50
>> To: dime@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Dime] Proposed resolutions of LOAD discussion
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I have outlined proposed solutions for the issues raised in the discussion around the Diameter Load draft.
>>
>> Please let me know if I've missed anything from the discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Primary Issues:
>>
>> 1) Use of DNS SRV weighted value as format for LOAD value.
>>
>> This was discussed and agreed to early in the process.  It has the advantage that Diameter nodes can use a combination of values received via the DNS SRV interface and dynamic values received through the Diameter LOAD interface.  While I agree that it isn't as intuitive as a straight percentage value, I don't see this as compelling enough of a reason to change a decision the working group has already made.
>> [MCruz] I still think using SRV values is error prone and anti-intuitive, but I can live with this if you really think it is not possible to re-evaluate this now.
> SRD> I haven't seen any argument that using the SRV values doesn't
> work.  As such, I prefer to not change this at this stage of the process.
>> 2) Need to add wording that the calculated LOAD value needs to be based on overall available capacity.
>>
>> I agree with Maria Cruz's comment that we need to add wording indicating that the calculated LOAD value needs to reflect available capacity.  To this end, I propose adding the following to section 6.1 (this is based on wording proposed by Maria Cruz):
>>
>> The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the Diameter nodes capacity relative to the total available capacity across the Diameter nodes to which requests can be routed.  This could be either a set of Diameter endpoints or a set of Diameter agents, depending on the type of the LOAD report.  The method for determining the total available capacity is outside of the scope of this document.
>>
>>       Note: The LOAD value should be calculated in a way that reflects the available load independently of the weight of each
>>       server.  This allows the Diameter node that routes a request, including nodes doing server selection and agents routing
>>       requests, to accurately compare values from different nodes.  Any specific LOAD value needs to identify  the same
>>       amount of available capacity, regardless the Diameter node that calculates the value.
>>
>> The mechanism used to calculate the LOAD value that fulfills this requirement is an implementation decision.
>>
>>
>> [MCruz] Some comments to proposed text:
>> " The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the Diameter nodes capacity relative to the total available capacity across the Diameter nodes to which requests can be routed. ": I think it may be misleading what is the "total available capacity across nodes".
>> See proposal:
>> " The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect each Diameter node capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for a Diameter node to which requests can be routed."
> SRD> This wording could imply that the LOAD value carries load
> information for multiple Diameter nodes.  How about the following:
>
> "The calculated LOAD value MUST reflect the sending Diameter nodes
> capacity relative to the maximum available capacity for the sending
> Diameter node."
>
>> 3) Wording in Appendix A.
>>
>> Before we reword Appendix A, we need to decide if it is still needed.
>> It was valuable in helping to generate the solution but I'm not convinced it is still needed in the document.  Is there objection to removing this section?
>>
>> [MCruz] I prefer this to remain, it provides some hints that may be valuable for first time readers.
> SRD> I'd like to hear other opinions on this as there is work required
> to make the section consistent with the mechanism defined. Implementors
> will still have access to this information by reviewing the history of
> the process of writing the specification.
>
> SRD> Are there schedule pressures in 3GPP to get this to RFC state?  If
> so, it will be faster to just remove this section.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime