Subject: [Dime] DOIC Review of issues

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:21:13 -0500

All,

The following is the list of open issues as of Monday, October 13. I've 
included my proposal for what needs to be done to close each issue.

Regards,

Steve

-----

#23     DOIC behavior for realm overload

Consensus reached that realm overload reports apply to requests that are 
not routed based on server selection.

Need to finalize wording on the definition on host report then update 
the definition of route report indicating it is all requests that are 
not covered by the host report.

Also need to review and update the loss report section to make sure that 
the behavior definition for both host and realm reports is complete and 
accurate.

#25     Section 3.1.5 Diameter Agent Behavior

Need definition of new error response.  Need to determine if this is 
defined in DOIC or as an extension to RFC6733.  Proposal is the later.

This issue depends on #23, as #23 will result in the definition of 
behavior of reacting nodes for host and realm reports.  The definitions 
hopefully will not be different for agents and Diameter endpoints.

Need to make sure that use cases outlined in the agent scenario draft 
are addressed.

#27     Behavior of agent acting on behalf of Client that does not 
support DOIC

Depends on the resolution to the new error code issue.  Probably need to 
define behavior for when the client support the new error code and for 
when it does not.

#43     Overstated guidance on session-ending requests.

Minor issue - requires proposed wording to close.

#57     Handling of "Realm-Routed" Overload report type

This is a dup of #23 and should be closed as such.

#58     Multiple Reporting Nodes for realm-routed-request type reports

Two proposals have been made:

1) Reporting nodes for realm reports must be kept in sync at all times 
with no additional behavior to handle the condition where they do get 
out of sync.

2) Reacting node only listens to the first node to report a new overload 
condition.  This addresses case where reporting nodes get out of sync.

Need to determine which approach to take.

#60     Agent Overload Report Handling considerations

This is a dup of #25.

#61     Agent Capability Announcement Considerations

This is a dup of #25.

#66     Non-Supporting Agent Changing Origin-Host

Two primary proposals:

1) Make it an operator configuration and test issue with no additional 
DOIC behavior defined.

2) Add an AVP to the OLR indicating the node that generated the report.  
The reacting node then detects that topology hiding behavior exists in 
the path taken by the request and can act accordingly.

Need to determine approach to take.

#67     OCS for Reporting Nodes - Expiry Time

No consensus on whether or not this is an issue.  One proposal is to 
make it clear that the OCS information discussed in the draft is an 
example and that reporting nodes can store different information as long 
as the DOIC signaling sent by the reporting node conforms with the DOIC 
specification.

Requires further discussion.

#68     Loss as the common abatemen algorithm

Consensus reached to change the wording to the following:

" Since the "loss" abatement algorithm [crossref] is mandatory to implement, DOIC can always be enabled between these two endpoints."

#69     Report Type - Realm, with absent Destination-Host

Multiple proposals for wording.  This deals with the need to make sure 
that we update the definitions of host-report and realm-report.

#70     Appendix B - Example

Multiple issues have been discussed in this thread.  I think there was 
consensus to say that a agent MAY change the OLR in the case where the 
server selects the rate algorithm, the agents supports rate and loss and 
the client only supports rate.

Requires further discussion to determine what detailed changes are proposed.

#71     Active overload report even if OC-OLR is not received

Little discussion.  Apparent consensus reached on proposed wording.

#72     Reporting Node Behaviour when OC-OLR is not received

Current document says an OLR must be included in every response. There 
is no agreement that this should be changed.

#73     Clarifications On Mbit

No list discussion on proposed changes.

#74     Move section 3.7. Considerations for Applications Integrating 
the DOIC Solution to Appendix

No list discussion on proposed change.