Re: [Dime] endpoint determination

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 3AA781ADF48 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:45:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 rUMRP1-Vdr78 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192251AD9B8 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB3LjgLW038812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:45:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519BD77@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:45:42 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2C75305-AC2B-40A3-AC3B-EA22AF3EF02F@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519BD77@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] endpoint determination
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:45:48 -0000

On Nov 28, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>; wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> draft-ietf-dime-ovli-00 in Clause 5.1 says:
> 
> How the endpoints are determined is specific to a deployment, a Diameter node role in that deployment and local configuration.
> 
> 
> In order to better address REQ  6 of RFC 7068 I would like to propose some principles that should be taken into account:
> 
> 1. A client that supports the Diameter Overload Control Mechanism must (offer to) take the role of a reacting endpoint and hence includes the OC-Feature-Vector AVP when sending requests.
> 2. An Agent that - based on local configuration - takes the role of a reporting endpoint (towards the downstream reacting endpoint) must also (offer to) take the role of a reacting endpoint towards the server and hence replace the received OC-Feature-Vector AVP with its own OC-Featur-Vector AVP.

I agree with the concepts in 1 and 2, but not as written (assuming you intend the use of must to be normative.) I think this is better written in terms of a definition of what reporting node and reacting node means, then mention that a supporting client is normally a reacting node, a supporting server is normally a reporting node, and an agent can be both.

> 3. An agent that supports the Diameter Overload Control Mechanism and that - based on absence of local configuration - does not take the role of a reporting endpoint must be able to detect whether a downstream agent or client  already takes the role of the reacting endpoint (e.g. by checking the presence of an OC-Feature-Vector AVP in the received request). If it detects that no downstream node took the role of the reacting  endpoint, the agent must take the role of the reacting endpoint and hence insert an OC-Feature AVP to the request. I.e. determination of the reporting endpoint is done dynamically and does not rely on local configuration.

I read that to mean you expect an agent to "take over" as the reacting node even if the administrator has completely turned off OC? If so, I don't agree, at least not as a normative requirement. Implementors can choose to create such a mode if they want to, but we don't need to require it.