Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #43: Overstated guidance on session-ending requests.

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:08:36 -0500

Sorry for dropping this one. 

I don't agree.

To recap:

The opening of 3.1.4 says :

>    The request classes identified in Section 3.1.3
>  have implications on
>    decisions about which requests should be throttled first.  The
>    following list of request treatment regarding throttling is provided
>    as guidelines for application designers when implementing the
>    Diameter overload control mechanism described in this document.
>    Exact behavior regarding throttling must be defined per application.
> 
> 

The paragraph to which I objected said:

> Session terminating requests should be throttled less aggressively in
>       order to gracefully terminate sessions, allow clean-up of the
>       related resources (e.g. session state) and get rid of the need for
>       other intra-session requests, reducing the session management
>       impact on the overloaded entity.  The default handling of other
>       intra-session requests might be to treat them equally when making
>       throttling decisions.  There might also be application level
>       considerations whether some request types are favored over others.

When taken together, that says to me that we offer non-normative guidance that applications should throttle session terminating requests less aggressively, but that applications would define the exact behavior. I see nothing about local policy here.

The change that would make me happy would be to adjust the end disclaimer to say " The exact behavior ... is a matter of local policy, unless specifically defined for the application."

... and to change the first sentence of the second quote to say "As an example, session terminating requests might be throttled less aggressively..."

On Feb 11, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Agreed
>  
> From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 18:32
> To: Steve Donovan; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #43: Overstated guidance on session-ending requests.
>  
> Hi Steve, Ben,
>  
> I agree with Steve that we have the text in introduction is clear enough to avoid ambiguity.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Lionel
>  
> De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Steve Donovan
> Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2014 18:06
> À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #43: Overstated guidance on session-ending requests.
>  
> Section 3.1.4 is not normative and says:
> The following list of request treatment regarding throttling is provided
> as guidelines for application designers when implementing the
> Diameter overload control mechanism described in this document.
> Exact behavior regarding throttling must be defined per application.
> Do you think we need further clarification that application designers should reflect that local policy applies?
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 2/7/14 3:34 PM, dime issue tracker wrote:
> #43: Overstated guidance on session-ending requests.
>  
>  In section 3.1.4, under "Intra-Session Requests" indicates that session
>  ending requests should be throttled less aggressively. While I agree
>  that's a good idea in general, I think that's a mater of local policy, and
>  not up to DOIC to specify.
>  
>  It would be better to indicate that prioritization under overload is up to
>  local policy, and list prioritizing of session-ending requests as an
>  example of a potential local policy.
>  
>  
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>  
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>  
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime