[Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 18 December 2012 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384E71F0CB2 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.36
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAy2wwmXSZsA for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:23:29 -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 1F6CD21F8574 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.14] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qBINNRxM051657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:23:27 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:23:29 -0600
References: <20121218231927.31153.89871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <02FF8071-81D1-4CD2-9D97-E906BAA45FC8@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 18 Dec 2012 23:23:31 -0000

Hi Everyone,

We've submitted draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02, based on the list discussions over the last few weeks. We believe this addresses all the substantive comments so far, except for the ongoing discussion on Req2 (concerning application independence and the impact on application specifications.) We've noted the open issue for Req 2 in the text.

The new version is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02 . You can see a diff from version 01 at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt .

Thanks!

Ben.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt
> Date: December 18, 2012 5:19:27 PM CST
> To: ben@nostrum.com
> Cc: emcmurry@computer.org
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ben Campbell and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs
> Revision:	 02
> Title:		 Diameter Overload Control Requirements
> Creation date:	 2012-12-17
> WG ID:		 dime
> Number of pages: 27
> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02.txt
> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs
> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02
> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-02
> 
> Abstract:
>   When a Diameter server or agent becomes overloaded, it needs to be
>   able to gracefully reduce its load, typically by informing clients to
>   reduce sending traffic for some period of time.  Otherwise, it must
>   continue to expend resources parsing and responding to Diameter
>   messages, possibly resulting in congestion collapse.  The existing
>   mechanisms provided by Diameter are not sufficient for this purpose.
>   This document describes the limitations of the existing mechanisms,
>   and provides requirements for new overload management mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>