Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05

Steve Donovan <> Mon, 13 June 2016 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B0412D629 for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:13:08 -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 kQV0ryEtrxZC for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:13:07 -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 9EFD112D64F for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:60650 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1bCYDn-000Qhi-HW; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:12:34 -0700
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Steve Donovan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:12:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:13:08 -0000

See inline

On 6/10/16 3:02 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
>>>> 2. Clause 5.2.3
>>>>       "In all cases, if the reacting node is a relay then it MUST strip the
>>>>        OC-OLR AVP from the message."
>>>>        But, will the relay react against the overload report received? i.e. is it a "reacting node" or it is just relaying the message?
>>> SRD> That is determined by the other statements in that section. If
>>> SRD> the
>>> SourceID received in the message matches that of a peer then the relay is a reacting node.  If it doesn't match then it is not a reacting node.  Either way, the OC-OLR AVP is stripped.
>>> MCRUZ> But a relay can't be a "reacting node", can it? A relay does not read or understand any AVP apart from routing related AVPs.
>> SRD> Yes a relay is the reacting node for any next hop that generates
>> SRD> a
>> peer overload report.  As with base DOIC, a relay must be able to handle DOIC AVPs, in addition to the routing AVPs.
>> MCRUZ> In DOIC this is not explicitly mentioned, and I do not see the need. Moreover, this changes the definition of what a relay is.
> SRD2> You are correct, it should say agent, not relay.  In my mind an
> agent that is a relay can also be a reacting node by expanding the definition of routing related AVPs to include DOIC AVPs.  I consider this valid as these AVPs, and the LOAD AVPs all impact routing decisions.  This, however, is somewhat academic as the practical impact of calling an agent that is a reacting node a relay or a proxy isn't meaningful.
> SRD> I'll change the word in the above clause to agent.
> MCRUZ> Thanks Steve. I think this change applies to other places in the draft.
SRD> I found a couple of other places that said "when relaying" that I 
changed to "when an agent relays".