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

Steve Donovan <> Wed, 11 May 2016 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2632212DABF; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZuxpf4L-t7F; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AFE412DAB0; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:62349 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1b0Tqc-000sDZ-8P; Wed, 11 May 2016 06:06:47 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <10389_1462926852_57327E03_10389_3007_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01E5F82F@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
From: Steve Donovan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:06:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
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, 11 May 2016 13:06:58 -0000


On 5/11/16 5:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
> On 10 May 2016, at 22:47, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <> wrote:
>>> Moreover, the priority handling will be applied ONLY when needed, when not all the messages can be handled. So, in normal situation, no difference will be made between messages with or without priority indication. And when required to prioritize the messages, it is normal to take into account “in priority” the priority indication included in the messages when available. Messages with priority indication will be handled with a best-effort approach when nothing else is defined (by application or operator policy).
>> Yes, you can and should take the priority indication into account but you still should not completely starve traffic that does not have a priority indication.
> This can only happen where there is a flood of messages and when it does, this is by design. The whole point of this is that when a flood of messages happens, lower priority messages get less preferential treatment, as opposed to random messages (as it is now without this extension) getting less preferential treatment.
>>> For the record, the value 10 is not “assigned” to message without priority indication. The node receiving these messages will behave as if the messages include a priority indication set to the value 10.
>> Okay, that is also not stated super clearly but important. And this still does not give an argument for specifying a random default value in this doc… Why is it important that all nodes apply the same  default priority handling?
> Because one would want consistent behaviour across the whole system. Which looks like a desired property.
SRD> +1