Re: [Dime] Ben's comments on 5.2.2: 5th paragraph

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Thu, 15 January 2015 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C31C1B2D2A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:17:52 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=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 kFokIv6BynKZ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:17:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.250]) (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 9B4521B2D33 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:64012 helo=Steves-MacBook-Air-2.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1YBn7B-0007rs-Dr; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:17:48 -0800
Message-ID: <54B7E829.8090307@usdonovans.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:17:45 -0600
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681523F0AA@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <54B7C2DE.9000905@usdonovans.com> <D6A1AD03-7F53-400D-8DCF-FD7BECE16B73@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6A1AD03-7F53-400D-8DCF-FD7BECE16B73@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
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: srd+usdonovans.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/wb_UFj6Eh7I2Qskux-0jAsSdWyU>
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben's comments on 5.2.2: 5th paragraph
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 16:17:54 -0000

On 1/15/15 9:15 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/15 3:59 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>>> Ben wrote:
>>> -- 5.2.2: 5th paragraph:
>>>   
>>> This doesn't seem quite right, since it leaves the option of no abatement at all. Second, it doesn't seem to allow delegation of abatement downstream. When might one choose to ignore those SHOULDs? Is this here to allow delegation? If so, the use of SHOULD makes local throttling preferred over delegation.
>>>   
>>> <Ulrich> My understanding is: If delegation of abatement is done by a node, then that node is no longer a reacting node.
>>> The first SHOULD is ignored by reacting nodes that do not support diversion and hence always perform throttling. For the second SHOULD you MAY be right. We SHOULD replace it with MUST.
>>> In addition the world “otherwise” must not be read as “ if diversion abatement treatment is not possible” but as “ if diversion abatement treatment is not possible and if the first SHOULD is ignored”.
>> SRD>  I mostly agree with Ulrich.  I propose the second sentence be changed to:
>> The reacting node MUST apply throttling abatement treatment to requests
>> identified for abatement treatment  when diversion treatment
>> is not possible or was not applied.
>>
> I agree in general. But I suggest casting in the form of MUST apply an abatement treatment, which SHOULD be diversion if possible. That is, avoid baking the current fact that we have only two treatment possibilities into the normative language.  In the odd chance we come up with some new kind of treatment in the future, this form would require less modification.
SRD> Ok. I'll propose wording later.
>
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DiME mailing list
>>>
>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>