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

"Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Wed, 04 May 2016 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC14612D0A0; Wed, 4 May 2016 04:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160504111323.8242.20592.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 04:13:23 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/ZwA65Tt-b1soLsoHpyo2UTqdKvU>
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org, dime-chairs@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-d?= =?utf-8?q?ime-drmp-05=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 04 May 2016 11:13:24 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-drmp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I fully agree with all discuss comments made by Ben and Alissa. However,
the summary here might be that this information might simply be not very
useful for the uses cases described. And there might be other mechanisms
that do not require any trust and that can address the uses cases easier
and more appropriate such a simply prioritization of a certain
application in the request handler/request agent or relative priorities
within one application (on sent-out). 

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.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you need 15 different priority levels? Wouldn't be two enough for
all or your use cases?