Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Gunn, Janet P" <> Wed, 11 May 2016 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB10612D680; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xCkBzSbHp_LT; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEE6A12D17E; Wed, 11 May 2016 05:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 May 2016 08:34:17 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Wed, 11 May 2016 08:33:51 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Wed, 11 May 2016 08:33:51 -0400
From: "Gunn, Janet P" <>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:33:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:33:58 -0000

This is a very valid concern.  It is important to recognize that "normal" users may include communications that is, in reality, more imprtant that the communications marked as high priority.

But that is a concern addressed by the priority mechanism (e.g., Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance (DOIC) [RFC7683]  or Diameter Overload Rate Control  [draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control]).

The concern is orthogonal to the use of a default priority.  Whether you use a default priority or not, if the Firefighters have not upgraded, there is no way for the system to distinguish the firefighters communications from "normal"  communications. So the firefighters won't be treated differently from the "normal" communications.

What is important is that  the priority mechanism protect the "normal" traffic from starvation.

Both DOIC and Rate Control are based on every message having a known priority.  Under those appraoches, If a message doesn't HAVE a priority it won't get served at all (totally starved).  The"arriving unmarked" messages NEED to be assigned a priority in order to be served.  Hence the need for a default priority.

Of course, there are other possible priority mechanisms.  But since those two are the ones that have been produced by the DIME WG for this purpose, it makes sense to put the priority marking process in that context.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) []
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:07 AM
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
Cc: Steve Donovan <>;;;; The IESG <>; Gunn, Janet P <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Okay let me go for an example here and see if that can be a use case that we are talking about.

You have a system where some clients run a communication service for emergency doctors as well as for firefighters and then there are also ‚normal‘ users that run some kind of communication service.

Now you actually have an emergency: some part of the system is down and the number of request is high such that the system is overloaded.

Both the emergency doctors have would have two different priority classes, one for important message about instruction (what and where people should do something) and one for communication between the doctors/firefighters which has still higher priority than any other communication of the other people (as you assume doctors and firefighters are more responsible to not misuse this communication channel).

Now only the emergency doctors communication service was upgraded to use this extension, but the firefighter’s administrations is just too slow or they currently have not enough money because they have specialized expensive hardware and software that is not easy to change.

Is it okay in this situation that the private chat of two doctors about their last ski-holidays starves requests to access the network to send instructor message to the firefighters?

(And how do i make sure that that all other other requests actually select a lower priority than 10…? But that’s a different question…)


> Am 11.05.2016 um 06:59 schrieb Alexey Melnikov <>:
> Hi Mirja,
> On 10 May 2016, at 17:59, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <> wrote:
>>>> I don’t think it is a good idea to assign a default priority to non-priority-defined requests at all. If you have high priority traffic that does not support this extension (yet) this traffic could be starved by lower priority traffic when assigning a middle range priority. I don’t think that is what you want to achieve.
>>> SRD> Actually, this is what we want to achieve.  It is an requirement that messages explicitly marked as high priority get treated even if it results in starving lower priority messages.  The starving of lower priority messages is not an problem, it is a requirement.
>> I think we are still talking past each other.
> Most definitely :-).
>> If you explicitly assign a priority, starvation might be okay. However, if you don’t have a priority explicitly signaled, the transaction might have a very high priority
> So some agent in the system needs to decide that a transaction is important.
>> but you just don’t know and by assigning a random mid-range priority this important request could get starved.
> Here I disagree with you, because the way to know that a transaction is important is to upgrade client to explicitly assign high priority to it. So default priority is a backward compatibility mechanism, that would work for most common cases. You seem to be suggesting that when this extension is deployed all clients need to be updated at the same time. This is not realistic.

This electronic message transmission contains information from CSRA that may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact me immediately and be aware that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. NOTE: Regardless of content, this email shall not operate to bind CSRA to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of email for such purpose.