Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Steve,

I do not agree.

We should still have the option
3) support report type 0 (this is called host report) and support of report type 1 (this has been called relam report but people argued it should better be called realm routed request report).

Whether or not we need in addition to type 0 and type 1 (or as a replacement of type 1) a realm-no-matter-whether-destination-host-is present-or-not report   is an open issue (see #55).
There are a lot of open questions  with regard to #55 and I have not seen a conclusion.
Where I have seen a conclusion is issue #34 and that is inline with option 3).

Unless we conclude on #55, or decide to re-open #34, option 3) is what should go in the -02 draft.

Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:57 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Ulrich,
All,

We have two options for the -02 draft.

1) Support Host and Realm as proposed below, removing RRR reports.
2) Support Host, Realm and RRR reports.

The default plan is to go with option 1 in the -02 draft, as that was the proposal that came out of the meeting in London.  RRR reports can be added back in if and when we are convinced of the need.

If there are strong objections to this then I will update the -02 draft to reflect all three report types.

I plan to make these updates Wednesday morning, Dallas, Texas time.

Either way I do not expect we will have agreed to wording on the interaction between the report types when a reacting node has multiple report types, all of which apply to individual requests.  This will need to be addressed in the -03 draft.

Regards,

Steve
On 3/21/14 4:05 PM, Steve Donovan wrote:
Ulrich,

The discussion should be captured in the minutes to the meeting.  I wasn't able to find them posted yet.

Jouni, Lionel, what is the status of the minutes for the meeting?

My reading of emails prior to the London meeting is different from yours.  I believe we had come to the conclusion that we needed host and realm (with the definition of realm as outlined below).  We were still discussing the need for Realm-Routed-Request reports.

Regards,

Steve
On 3/21/14 10:09 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Steve,

I don't know what happend in London.
Can you please summarize the technical reasons that led to the London agreement.
E-mail discussions prior to London have clearly directed towards a report type that requests throttling of realm routed request messages (i.e. not containing a destination host) rather than a report type that requests throttling of messages routed towards a realm (no matter whether they contain a destination host or not).

Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:33 PM
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

All,

Ben and I took the action item to discuss the need for the Realm-Routed-Reports (RRR) report type.

As you may recall, the consensus coming out of the DIME WG meeting in London was to support two report types:

- Host -- Impacting requests with a Destination-Host AVP matching the host in the overload report (with the host implicitly determined from the Origin-Host AVP of the answer message carrying the overload report).

- Realm -- Impacting 100% of the requests with a Destination-Realm AVP matching the realm in the overload report (with the realm implicitly determine from the Origin-Realm of the answer message carrying the overload report).

The action Ben and I took was to come back with an opinion on whether RRR reports should also be supported.

My summary of the discussion is that we recommend to NOT include RRR reports in the current version of the base DOIC draft.

We still have some concerns with the granularity of control enabled by having just the two report types but the analysis of whether RRR reports are still needed can occur independent of the base DOIC draft.  If there is a determination that RRRs are needed in time to include in the base draft then it can be considered at that time.

Based on this, I propose the following

- Resolution to issue #23 is to remove RRR reports from the document.
- Resolution to issue #55 is to add Realm reports (actually to redefine them per the above definition).
- Resolution to issue #57 is that it no longer applies (as it deals with RRRs).

There is also need for text describing the interaction between host and the realm reports.  I don't expect we will have consensus on this wording prior to the -02 draft being submitted.  To this end, I'll open a new issue to deal with the need for wording on the interaction.

Regards,

Steve

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime