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

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 04 May 2016 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E16B12D555 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 04:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=LduuAgHe; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=ABWaWTbW
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HX8pMsKFt_nV for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 04:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B184A12D538 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 04:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D96920986 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 07:32:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 04 May 2016 07:32:34 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=mYMbSbvNbozjBIVRi/AGESR9pBA=; b=LduuAg HeDTbIlw3Qc+4weglc8gi9gtIXKppQM2kXSEHCBP8q2dRa++3lFQkQIDmfZYmULV ckP10EB/bPtxlYWhqcri5N7aAEY/3j9mVrEcKb1QO4h51SfYCCxSW/WwyxOJCvEJ Aj2GXdu+rgJpJP2+pdppij0A3wA38voieGB/I=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=mYMbSbvNbozjBIV Ri/AGESR9pBA=; b=ABWaWTbWJeNJYFMd+HL4AJI7YD7HzVtOaN1Z6Ix9SQwqbiP nfZGwJHd+gHCkx0js3X1R6E1qiC/2rNn+TCkF9mtif/4ZjnWPyjm+Y/vPu3jsFG/ eKx+3fyn+NdM9K9dDno2dDF74DACXx7H7pR/wBdetC5AO+nXvFwOvdsiBVAU=
X-Sasl-enc: jjNQ4kr7YbDm0z5nPWRCIsBHGDB46uYU0ixx5m9Y1/vm 1462361553
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 72A0068019D; Wed, 4 May 2016 07:32:33 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13E238)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 12:37:46 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
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, 04 May 2016 11:32:36 -0000

Hi Mirja,

> On 4 May 2016, at 12:13, Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
> However, the one part that does actually concern me is:
> "When using DRMP priority information, Diameter nodes MUST use the
>   default priority for transactions that do not have priority specified
>   in a DRMP AVP."
> This part seems dangerous and I would proposed to instead basically have
> to different queues: one if a priority is defined and another one for
> requests without priority indication to make sure that requests out of
> the second queue will be served at some point in time and cannot be
> starved by other low priority requests completely.

I think I disagree with you: default priority handling is orthogonal to the number of queues used. Some implementations would use one queue per priority, so you are effectively suggesting that no priority is treated as its own priority. I think this is an implementation detail.