Diameter Routing Message Priority
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-07
Yes
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-05 for -05)
Unknown
I disagree with Mirja's DISCUSS point. In Section 6: excuse my ignorance, but how can priority information be conveyed to non-supporting endpoints (in 2 places)? And what is the point,as they don't support the extension? In 9.1: it would be better to just have a table, instead of copying and modifying lots of text. It would be good to have a short sentence saying how this extension affects non upgraded agents.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -05)
Unknown
I agree with Mirja's and Alissa's discusses.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-31 for -06)
Unknown
Thank you for resolving the issues I raised.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-10 for -05)
Unknown
Thanks for engaging on my previous DISCUSS points and comments.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -05)
Unknown
- OLD: This also recognizes that more work has already taken place for established sessions and, as a result, it might be more harmful if the session update and session ending requests were to be throttled. NEW: This also recognizes that more work has already taken place for established sessions and, as a result, it might be more harmful from a signaling point of view if the session update and session ending requests were to be throttled. - 1. Request sender - The sender of a request, be it a Diameter Client or a Diameter Server, determines the relative priority of the request and includes that priority information in the request. Question: what is the risk of DMRP ending up as the DSCP, i.e. Every end point changes the value to best service, and in the end, it's useless, and uniquely set by the operator.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-04 for -05)
Unknown
I'd like to see text clarifying the responses to Ben & Alissa's discuss points.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-05-11 for -05)
Unknown
I still think this part needs further clarification mostly regarding applicability and maybe a warning as it could lead to starvation of requests that do not define a priority, e.g. because there are not supporting it (yet) while effectively having a higher priortiy than the requests that they get starved by: "When using DRMP priority information, Diameter nodes MUST use the default priority for transactions that do not have priority specified in a DRMP AVP."
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2016-05-04 for -05)
Unknown
After reading the document and the threads related to the DISCUSSes, I'm ABSTAINing because I can't see how this mechanism can reliably work (even in "trusted environments") as described here.