Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt
Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Fri, 24 April 2015 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <jgunn6@csc.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79E01B2AB4; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 iarnFGc9sgtz; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail86.messagelabs.com (mail86.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49831ACC91; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Env-Sender: jgunn6@csc.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-86.messagelabs.com!1429893378!729789!1
X-Originating-IP: [20.137.2.87]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 7410 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2015 16:36:18 -0000
Received: from amer-mta101.csc.com (HELO amer-mta111.csc.com) (20.137.2.87) by server-14.tower-86.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 24 Apr 2015 16:36:18 -0000
Received: from amer-gw15.amer.csc.com (amer-gw15.amer.csc.com [20.137.2.189]) by amer-mta111.csc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id t3OGaHtc019648; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:36:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <553A693E.6090704@usdonovans.com>
References: <20150306164736.31078.67435.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F9DB6A.7080207@usdonovans.com> <OFAFB26657.31EF2B52-ON85257E31.005425E0-85257E31.0054B29F@csc.com> <553A693E.6090704@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 68406EA6:2C28A3D2-85257E31:0059896E; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2FP4 SHF97 March 26, 2012
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Message-ID: <OF68406EA6.2C28A3D2-ON85257E31.0059896E-85257E31.005B36DD@csc.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:36:16 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW15/SRV/CSC(Release 8.5.3FP5|July 31, 2013) at 04/24/2015 12:36:17 PM, Serialize complete at 04/24/2015 12:36:17 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005B369A85257E31_="
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/UT0pLMr2nv1O9zf5Ia99dZS5Kg8>
Cc: DiME <dime-bounces@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 16:36:29 -0000
Steve, For instance, in the current draft, section 4 (Problem Statement) has a "Note": Note: There are a number of application specific definitions indicating various views of application level priority for different requests. Using these application specific priority AVPs as input to throttling and other Diameter routing decisions would require Diameter agents to understand all applications and do application specific parsing of all messages in order to determine the priority of individual messages. This is considered an unacceptable level of complexity to put on elements whose primary responsibility is to route Diameter messages. I think that this is MUCH more important than just a "Note", and could be restated as a requirement, such as "The marking scheme SHOULD NOT require the Diameter Agents to understand all application specific AVPs" That made me think that there are probably other such ground rules which should be made prominent in the problem statement. Rather that re-inventing the wheel, what can be reused form previous efforts. For instance. I think this requirement from RFC 3689, is probably relevant here " Policy MUST be kept separate from label(s). This topic has generated a fair amount of debate, and so we provide additional guidance from the following: A set of labels may be defined as being related to each other. Characteristics (e.g., drop precedence) may also be attributed to these labels. [11] is an example of a related set of labels based on a specific characteristic. However, the mechanisms used to achieve a stated characteristic MUST NOT be stated in the definition of a label. Local policy determines mechanism(s) used to achieve or support a specific characteristic. This allows for the possibility of different mechanisms to achieve the same stated characteristic. The interaction between unrelated labels MUST NOT be embedded within the definition of a label. Local policy states the actions (if any) to be taken if unrelated labeled traffic merges at a node. Finally, labels may have additional characteristics added to them as a result of local policy." And so on. I am NOT suggesting a separate requirements document, and I am NOT suggesting "specifying how to set those priorities." I agree that "this is up to the individual applications to specify." I am suggesting setting some basic "ground rules" in the "Problem Statement". I am working on detailed comments, but since this is essentially a "meta-comment", I wanted to get it out separately. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> To: Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC@CSC Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, DiME <dime-bounces@ietf.org> Date: 04/24/2015 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt Janet, The core requirement is to give Diameter applications the ability to specify a priority that can then be used to drive Overload abatement behavior. I am open to making this crisper in the next version of the draft. I don't envision this draft specifying how to set those priorities. This is up to the individual applications to specify. Steve On 4/24/15 10:25 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote: I am finally looking at this document in detail. At the highest level, what strikes me is that it doesn't have a lot of specificity on the requirements it is intended to meet. Since you reference the analogy with SIP RPH (RFC4412), it might make sense to look at the requirements specs that led to RPH (RFC -3487 “Requirements for Resource Priority Mechanisms for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)” and RFC-3689 “ETS General Requirements” - which is more generally about priority marking), and see which, if any, are relevant for Diameter. Janet This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Sent by: "DiME" <dime-bounces@ietf.org> 03/06/2015 11:52 AM To "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org> cc Subject [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt All, I have submitted a draft proposing work on defining Diameter routing message priority. The primary use case for the draft is to give the ability to mark different requests with different priorities, giving Diameter nodes making DOIC throttling decisions additional information on which requests should be throttled first. The draft outlines a number of considerations on the design of the mechanism, should the working group decide to take on the work. I will be requesting adding this as a DIME working group milestone at the Dallas IETF meeting. Regards, Steve -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:47:36 -0800 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> A new version of I-D, draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Steve Donovan and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-donovan-dime-drmp Revision: 00 Title: Diameter Routing Message Priority Document date: 2015-03-06 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 11 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donovan-dime-drmp/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-donovan-dime-drmp-00 Abstract: When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative priority of Diameter requests. This document defines a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the relative priority of Diameter requests/transactions/messages. With this information Diameter nodes can factor the relative priority of requests/transactions/messages into routing, resource allocation and overload abatement decisions. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-do… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draf… Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draf… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draf… Janet P Gunn