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

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Mon, 13 June 2016 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B0412D629 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQV0ryEtrxZC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.197.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EFD112D64F for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-97-99-50-102.tx.res.rr.com ([97.99.50.102]:60650 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86_1) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1bCYDn-000Qhi-HW; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:12:34 -0700
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <5bba2470-8921-f7db-0f1b-aad280eae684@gmail.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181E2DAF@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <0f981f69-cea1-6cc4-6837-213d27649963@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181F08F6@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <77df2a07-ca55-df36-30bb-87a2ff506418@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181F1907@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <004a3446-c750-05e8-7444-673a14cc10c3@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181F1F8F@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Message-ID: <5cb223e5-3570-b668-342e-60866e35e97f@usdonovans.com>
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: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92181F1F8F@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
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 - 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
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/omLW5pWNIjm32BmQKim53NUJXf4>
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-05
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 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".
>
>