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

[Maria Cruz Bartolome <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I support option 1 a well
Cheers
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: martes, 25 de marzo de 2014 16:15
To: ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Steve,
Thank you for this summary.
Please see inline.

Ulrich

From: ext Steve Donovan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:49 PM
To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Ulrich,

I mean going backwards from where I thought we were after the London meeting.

We are clearly out of sync but hopefully we can fix that.

Here's my understanding of the status of #23 and #55.

Prior to London meeting:

#23 status:
 - Agreement to change the name of existing realm reports to realm-routed-reports (RRR).
<Ulrich>this includes agreement to keep the (newly called) realm-routed-reports</Ulrich>
 - Discussions were ongoing as to the need for both realm reports and RRR reports.
<Ulrich>I would say "...as to the need for realm reports in addition to realm-routed-reports" </Ulrich>


#55 status:
  - Agreement on adding Realm reports based on the definition that realm reports apply to all traffic sent to the realm.
<Ulrich>This is what I'm missing. The issue has been very briefly discussed under #34 without conclusion. There was no discussion under #55</Ulrich>

  - Limited discussion on the interaction between the new realm reports and the existing host and RRR reports.

After London meeting:

#23 status:
  - Tentative agreement in London meeting to remove RRR reports.
<Ulrich>What was the technical argument?</Ulrich>

  - Ben expressed the strongest concern with this plan.  Steve and Ben took action to discuss and come back with a recommendation.

#55 status:
  - No change

Summary:
  - Tentative consensus reached to move forward with two report types - host and realm, with realm having the new definition.
<Ulrich>What was the technical argument?</Ulrich>

Current status:

#23 status:
 - Change the name to RRR
 - Whether or not to remove RRR and revisit later or keep RRR and revisit later is an open issue.

#55 status:
  - My opinion is that we have at least rough consensus on the need to support realm reports.  Others might have a different opinion.
<Ulrich> There was no comment posted to issue #55, also no proposed solution, so I cannot see where the consensus came from</Ulrich>


Summary:
  - I believe we have three options:

   1) Support host and RRR reports
   2) Support host and Realm reports -- This was the tentative plan coming out of the London meeting
< Ulrich> There is not even an issue number identifying problems with RRR and proposing to remove RRR</Ulrich>

   3) Support host, RRR and Realm reports
<Ulrich> I support option 1</Ulrich>

Regards,

Steve
On 3/25/14 6:44 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Steve,
I don't think we are going backwards (we may be out of synch though)

Can you please summarize the status of #23 and #55.

Ulrich


From: ext Steve Donovan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 7:38 PM
To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

Ok, we are going backwards on this one.

I did not include option three because we had moved past that option in our discussions, both on the list (I thought), and in the meeting.

I believe that we had come to rough consensus on the need for a realm report and the only remaining issue was whether we also included the RRR report type.

At this point, the only option is to leave all of the issues related to the report types open and attempt to resolve them in the -03 draft.

Steve
On 3/24/14 11:13 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Steve,

I do not agree.

We should still have the option
3) support report type 0 (this is called host report) and support of report type 1 (this has been called relam report but people argued it should better be called realm routed request report).

Whether or not we need in addition to type 0 and type 1 (or as a replacement of type 1) a realm-no-matter-whether-destination-host-is present-or-not report   is an open issue (see #55).
There are a lot of open questions  with regard to #55 and I have not seen a conclusion.
Where I have seen a conclusion is issue #34 and that is inline with option 3).

Unless we conclude on #55, or decide to re-open #34, option 3) is what should go in the -02 draft.


Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:57 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Resolution on action to discuss the need for Realm-Routed-Reports

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:33 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

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