Subject: [Dime] Summary notes from Dime 93

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:35:27 +0200

Hi all,

Below are my summary notes from the meeting yesterday:

Jean

------------------------------------------

IETF-93 dime

Session 2015-07-22 1300-1530: Karlin III

13:00 - 13:20, Preliminaries (20 minutes)
------------------------------------------
Audio/Video & Remote Presentation Debugging
Presentation: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/agenda/agenda-93-dime
Presenters: Jouni Korhonen, Lionel Morand

Note Takers: Jean Mahoney
Jabber relay: Jean Mahoney
Jabber log: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dime/2015-07-22.html

Agenda change: Group Signaling added to the end of the meeting.

Steve Donovan requested comments on the agent overload and rate control 
drafts.

ACTION: Remind mailing list to review draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload and 
draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.

Working group draft discussion (30 minutes)
-------------------------------------------

13:20 - 13:40 Diameter Load Information Conveyance, (Steve Donovan 20 min)
Document: draft-ietf-dime-load-00
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dime-1.pdf

The presentation focused on the server load concept, which requires 
non-base-protocol routing criteria, but would be useful in real-world 
deployments. Martin Dolly expressed his support of the server load work. 
Lionel Morand said that the server load information could be presented 
in a separate section in the draft, with notes that the routing did not 
use base protocol criteria, and that, if middle nodes did not support 
it, it may not work.

The draft would provide guidelines on how to use load info, but not 
normative text on how to do load balancing. Since there no proscriptive 
behavior tied to the AVPs, there is no need for capability negotiation. 
Martin advised keeping the AVPs simple.

Balint Uveges wondered about load info persistence. A restart of the 
server would wipe out the server's load.

Jean-Jacques expressed a preference for a new grouped AVP, since some 
networks would only use peer and not server load information, and peers 
in those networks would not need to look at server load.

As for indicating source, Conrad pointed at the History-Info header in 
SIP, and said that he did not want something as complicated.

For the server-load case, Lionel asked if freshness was an issue and if 
a timestamp would be necessary.

ACTION: Put the server load information in a separate section of the 
draft, note that it is not Diameter base, and, if any node in the middle 
does not support it, it may not work. Steve and Jean-Jacques to work on 
the mechanism part of the draft before Yokohama.

13:40 - 13:50 Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance, (Jouni 10 min) 
Status Update
Document: draft-ietf-dime-ovli-08
Presentation: None

The draft is in last call. Jouni reported that, although Stephen Farrell 
originally had concerns because both chairs were authors, the working 
group could show that process was used and issues resolution was 
traceable. IANA has allocated code points. Care will need be taken to 
ensure that changes due to LC comments do not re-open issues on which 
the working group had achieved rough consensus.

ACTION: Steve to address LC comments.

Individual draft discussion (15 minutes)
----------------------------------------

13:50 - 14:05 Diameter Routing Message Priority, (Steve 15 min)
Document: draft-donovan-dime-drmp-01
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dime-0.pdf

Martin pointed out that network priority needed to be coordinated with 
radio priority so that the mechanism doesn't interfere with emergency 
first responders. He said that ATIS is defining priorities for first 
responders and government in North America and each carrier will create 
its own guidelines based on that. Steve realized that maybe DRMP should 
be application specific so that it could be configurable. Jean-Jacques 
said that operators configured policies to map an external network's 
priority to it's own priorities.

There was a discussion about whether the highest priority level should 
be 0 or 4, and how many levels there should be. Steve said he made it 
consistent with the SIP Resource-Priority header (RPH).

Steve requested to turn the draft into working group item. Martin 
supported and said that 3GPP CT was working on a public safety 
Push-To-Talk solution. Three other people supported  by raising hands. 
No one objected. Lionel said that the draft would become a work item 
once confirmed on list.

ACTION: Confirm making DRMP a working group item on the mailing list.

Group Signaling
---------------

Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dime-2.pdf
Presenter: Marco

Steve volunteered to review the draft.

ACTION: Steve to review the group signaling draft.

Wrap-up (nn minutes)
--------------------

14:05 - 14:20 Next Steps / AOB: WG Chairs & ADs (nn minutes)

There is an effort to standardize TACACS, which is a regex-like 
mechanism defined by Cisco. The discussion can be followed on opsarea list.

Now that the security requirements document is done, a security draft is 
needed. Lionel said that AD suggested that the draft be written and then 
submitted for security review.

Lionel encouraged the working group to be active.

ACTION: Jouni to resurrect the old security document.