Re: [Dime] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)

Steve Donovan <> Mon, 04 February 2019 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CF8130EEF for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:37:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 C0bmlVflt6Yk for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023F7130EED for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 11:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (port=62457 helo=SDmac.lan) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1gqk3S-00GXhX-KU for; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:37:29 -0800
References: <>
From: Steve Donovan <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:37:18 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------717831DAACAE5483E90D618A"
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] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 04 Feb 2019 19:37:32 -0000


Thanks for the review and comments.  Please see my comments inline.


On 1/22/19 6:06 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: Yes
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for doing this work, and for basing it on SIP Overload Control. It's
> nice when protocol designers adopt good ideas from each other.
> There are three SHOULDs in Section 5.1, Reporting Node Overload Control State,
> I'd like to understand better.
>    A reporting node that uses the rate abatement algorithm SHOULD
>    maintain reporting node Overload Control State (OCS) for each
>    reacting node to which it sends a rate Overload Report (OLR).
> ^^ This one - I'm guessing that this is "SHOULD unless you're still writing
> code upgrading an implementation that treats all reacting nodes the same way",
> based on this next sentence, but I'm guessing. Why wouldn't you do this?
SRD> If all reacting nodes are equal then an implementation could choose
to have a single OCS entry the applies to all nodes.
>       This is different from the behavior defined in [RFC7683] where a
>       single loss percentage sent to all reacting nodes.
>    A reporting node SHOULD maintain OCS entries when using the rate
>    abatement algorithm per supported Diameter application, per targeted
>    reacting node and per report type.
> ^^ Your answer to my previous question is likely to help me understand this
> one, but I'm guessing reasons why you wouldn't do this.
SRD> Same reason as above. 
>    A rate OCS entry is identified by the tuple of Application-Id, report
>    type and DiameterIdentity of the target of the rate OLR.
>    The rate OCS entry SHOULD include the rate allocated to the reacting
>    note.
> ^^ I'm really interested on this one - does the rate abatement algorithm work
> without knowing the rate that's allocated? but assuming that it does work, I'm
> still guessing why you wouldn't do this.
SRD> It's related to the above.  If the implementation chooses to always
calculate the rate sent to a reacting node based a simple calculation of
"max rate" divided by "number of reacting nodes", then it would not need
to store the rate in the OCS.
>    A reporting node that has selected the rate overload abatement
>    algorithm MUST indicate the rate requested to be applied by DOIC
>    reacting nodes in the OC-Maximum-Rate AVP included in the OC-OLR AVP.
>    All other elements for the OCS defined in [RFC7683] and
>    [I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload] also apply to the reporting nodes OCS
>    when using the rate abatement algorithm.
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list