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

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

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".
>
>