--- 1/draft-ietf-dime-load-04.txt 2016-12-02 13:13:15.119929121 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dime-load-05.txt 2016-12-02 13:13:15.163930074 -0800 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force B. Campbell Internet-Draft S. Donovan, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Oracle -Expires: June 4, 2017 JJ. Trottin +Expires: June 5, 2017 JJ. Trottin Nokia - December 1, 2016 + December 2, 2016 Diameter Load Information Conveyance - draft-ietf-dime-load-04 + draft-ietf-dime-load-05 Abstract This document defines a mechanism for conveying of Diameter load information. RFC7068 describes requirements for Overload Control in Diameter. This includes a requirement to allow Diameter nodes to send "load" information, even when the node is not overloaded. RFC7683 (Diameter Overload Information Conveyance (DOIC)) solution describes a mechanism meeting most of the requirements, but does not currently include the ability to send load information. @@ -27,21 +27,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -72,22 +72,22 @@ 7.1. Load AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Load-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.3. Load-Value AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.4. SourceID AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.5. Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.1. AVP Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. New Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Topology Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. No Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.2. Single Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.3. Multiple Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.4. Linked Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.5. Shared Server Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.6. Agent Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.7. Fully Meshed Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.8. Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.9. Active-Standby Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 @@ -690,52 +690,52 @@ Section Section 7. All AVP codes are allocated from the 'Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters' AVP Codes registry. 9.2. New Registries This document makes no new registry requests of IANA. 10. References -10.1. Normative References +10.1. Informative References + + [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for + specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, + . + + [RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control + Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November + 2013, . + + [RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L. + Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", + RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015, + . + +10.2. Normative References [I-D.ietf-dime-agent-overload] Donovan, S., "Diameter Agent Overload", draft-ietf-dime- agent-overload-02 (work in progress), August 2015. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, . - [RFC7068] McMurry, E. and B. Campbell, "Diameter Overload Control - Requirements", RFC 7068, DOI 10.17487/RFC7068, November - 2013, . - -10.2. Informative References - - [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for - specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, - . - - [RFC7683] Korhonen, J., Ed., Donovan, S., Ed., Campbell, B., and L. - Morand, "Diameter Overload Indication Conveyance", - RFC 7683, DOI 10.17487/RFC7683, October 2015, - . - Appendix A. Topology Scenarios This section presents a number of Diameter topology scenarios, and discusses how load information might be used in each scenario. A.1. No Agent Figure 6 shows a simple client-server scenario, where a client picks from a set of candidate servers available for a particular realm and application. The client selects the server for a given transaction