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

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Mon, 24 March 2014 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABED1A0218 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.58
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FYwxNHIGyCes for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [23.235.209.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F371A0211 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:55041 helo=SDmac.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WS5Mg-0002vY-3n for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:56:38 -0700
Message-ID: <53303991.6060307@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:56:33 -0500
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dime@ietf.org
References: <532C4D98.7040303@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151C98A7@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <532CA99F.4070409@usdonovans.com>
In-Reply-To: <532CA99F.4070409@usdonovans.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040504030907000805060801"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/ojlIrSJUFVvYnoY823jx4HozOE8
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:56:44 -0000

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