Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload

From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 08:04:47 +0000

Steve,

could you please explain why you propose to align in this direction?
I would have thougth that realm type reports apply only to requests that contain that realm but do not contain a destination-host.

Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext dime issue tracker
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:25 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload

#23: DOIC behavior for realm overload

 This applies to draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01, which does not show up in the
 Component drop down menu.

 The current assumption in the -01 draft is inconsistent in the definition
 of behavior of behavior by a reacting node when it receives a realm
 overload report.

 Section 4.6 says overload treatment should apply to all request bound for
 the overloaded realm.

 Section 5.5.2 is not clear and there have been interpretations that a
 realm overload report only applies to requests that contain the realm and
 do not contain a destination-host AVP.

 Section 5.5.2 should be updated to be consistent with section 4.6.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-docdt-dime-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli    |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/23>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:54:15 -0600

We've had a lot of discussion of this topic.

I believe that we reached agreement that we currently have two types of
reports:

- Host report that applies to requests sent to a destination-host
- Realm report that applies requests routed to a realm that do not have
a specified destination-host (realm-routed requests)

We also have proposed wording on the interaction between these report
types. 

I propose that the second be renamed to realm-routed reports.

A separate ticket has been opened on the need for a third report type
that would apply to all request routed to a realm, independent of
whether a request contains a destination-host AVP.

Steve

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:34:09 -0600

+1

On Feb 19, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Steve Donovan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I believe that we reached agreement that we currently have two types of reports:
> 
> - Realm report that applies requests routed to a realm that do not have a specified destination-host (realm-routed requests)
> 
> We also have proposed wording on the interaction between these report types.  
> 
> A separate ticket has been opened on the need for a third report type that would apply to all request routed to a realm, independent of whether a request contains a destination-host AVP.
> 
> Steve
>

---

From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:07:21 +0000

Steve,

see inline.
Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #23: DOIC behavior for realm overload

<Ulrich> I agree</Ulrich>

<Ulrich> can you please remind me what that proposed wording is. My current understanding is that there is no interaction between these two report types</Ulrich>

<Ulrich> no strong view, but my preference is in favour of "absent-host reports"</Ulrich>

A separate ticket has been opened on the need for a third report type that would apply to all request routed to a realm, independent of whether a request contains a destination-host AVP.
<Ulrich> I understand that this is #55</Ulrich>

Steve

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:55:01 -0600

Ulrich,

For the following:

---

--- 

I agree with you that there is no interaction between the host reports
and "realm-routed" reports (or what ever we end up calling them).

Steve