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

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <> Wed, 04 May 2016 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEC412DA6F for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnvgYl49nJKT for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 09:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE27812D8A0 for <>; Wed, 4 May 2016 08:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 19537 invoked from network); 4 May 2016 17:50:44 +0200
Received: from (HELO ? ( by with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 4 May 2016 17:50:44 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 17:50:49 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Gunn, Janet P" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
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 16:05:11 -0000

Hi Janet,

there are clearly more options than the two mention below.

E.g. one option is the one explained in my initial comment: hhaving two queues, that are both served with a certain rate.

I’m sure there are more (and potentially more complex) solutions to this problem as well.

Assigning an arbitrary priority is not the right option from my point of view and can actually hurt the systems.


> Am 04.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Gunn, Janet P <>:
> My comment below.
> Janet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [] On Behalf Of Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: Alexey Melnikov <>
> Cc:;;; The IESG <>
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> Hi Alexey,
> see below.
> The point is, if you explicitly indicate that you have a lower priority, you are okay to be starved. However, if you don’t indicate anything (maybe just because you have not been aware that it is possible to do so), you might have the same or even a higher priority, and in this case it’s not okay to be starved.
> Mirja
> <JPG> If a message comes in without a priority, into a system which serves messages based on priority (regardless of the specific mechanisms)you have two options
> 1- Discard the message (Not a good idea in most systems)
> 2 - Assign the message an ARBITRARY priority (we call this arbitrary value the "default priority")
> You can (and probably will) argue 'til the cows come home on what that arbitrary/default value SHOULD BE.  And different sytems/applications might have different "default values".
> But I don't think there should be any argument that, if a message comes in without a priority, you need to assign it a priority.
> </JPG>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> 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.