RE: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change

<marco.stura@nokia.com> Tue, 08 June 2004 13:36 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26095 for <aaa-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 901DE91285; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: aaa-wg-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4F44391286; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: aaa-wg@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D0791285 for <aaa-wg@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 3E1A6597D9; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:36 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: aaa-wg@merit.edu
Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com (mgw-x2.nokia.com [131.228.20.22]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312565977B for <aaa-wg@merit.edu>; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (esdks003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.158]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i58DaWH23568; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:36:32 +0300 (EET DST)
X-Scanned: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:34:54 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.30 2004040916 - RELEASE
Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id i58DYsXa020332; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:34:54 +0300
Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks003.ntc.nokia.com 0038R5wY; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:34:53 EEST
Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.77]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i58DYlH26253; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:34:47 +0300 (EET DST)
Received: from esebe016.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.55]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:34:47 +0300
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C44D5D.5D573303"
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 16:34:46 +0300
Message-ID: <142DC466081D9B409AAD1DDCA4B21E1D018B058F@esebe016.ntc.nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change
Thread-Index: AcRNV6trsNApRQGyTAOxyRFDnzkurQAAxGyQ
From: marco.stura@nokia.com
To: amuhanna@nortelnetworks.com, peter.zackrisson@ericsson.com
Cc: Harri.Hakala@ericsson.com, Leena.Mattila@ericsson.com, juha-pekka.koskinen@nokia.com, john.loughney@nokia.com, aaa-wg@merit.edu
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2004 13:34:47.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E235E50:01C44D5D]
Sender: owner-aaa-wg@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Hi,
 
I think the Peter answer indicated that this is not a problem.
 
Indeed, who decide the billing model is the server in the home network and not the client in the
visited network, this was already discussed in the mailing list a while ago.
If the server sent a tariff-time-change in the answer is because it requires this model, perhaps 
it has also contractual implications with the user if the model is broken, and therefore it is correct for 
the client to reject the answer if it doesn't support the tariff-time-change mechanism.
 
It is up to the server to eventually track that the origin-host X rejected an answer with Tariff-Time-Change AVP
and at the next attempt change the billing model if possible. However, typically an agreement between
DCC-Client and server exist and the server can control whether to send the tariff-time-change or not.
 
Marco
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ahmad Muhanna [mailto:amuhanna@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: 08 June, 2004 15:51
To: 'Peter Zackrisson (KA/EAB)'; aaa-wg@merit.edu
Cc: 'Harri.Hakala@ericsson.com'; 'Leena.Mattila@ericsson.com'; Koskinen Juha-Pekka (Nokia-NET/Tampere); Stura Marco (Nokia-NET/Helsinki); Loughney John (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); Ahmad Muhanna
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change


So far the only comment received is from Peter. 
Does this mean that every one agrees that this is a problem that needs to be fixed.
If so, what do you think the solution should be?

Regards, 
Ahmad 

-----Original Message-----
From: Muhanna, Ahmad [RICH2:2Q30:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:59 AM
To: 'Peter Zackrisson (KA/EAB)'; aaa-wg@merit.edu
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change


Thanks Peter,
 
Is it fair to say that your argument is based on the assumption that all DCC Servers are always aware of all DCC clients capabilities with respect to Tariff-Time-Change mechanism support.
 
Thanks again.

Regards, 
Ahmad 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Zackrisson (KA/EAB) [mailto:peter.zackrisson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:48 AM
To: Muhanna, Ahmad [RICH2:2Q30:EXCH]; aaa-wg@merit.edu
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change


I think the DCC specification is correct regarding the tariff change mechanism.
 
If a DCC client does not support the tariff change mechanism the DCC server must use a charging model towards that client that is not based on time,
which means that Tariff-Time-Change is not to be sent.
This means that it is up to the DCC server to be able to control if Tariff-Time-Change should be sent or not.
If you have a charging model saying that the price for e.g. volume will be different between 8 and 18 o'clock the clients will have to support
tariff change mechanism.
It is a very bad idea if some clients are allowed to break the charging model (instead the charging model should be changed).
 
/ Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aaa-wg@merit.edu [mailto:owner-aaa-wg@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Ahmad Muhanna
Sent: den 4 juni 2004 15:15
To: aaa-wg@merit.edu
Cc: Harri Hakala (JO/LMF); Leena Mattila (TU/LMF); 'juha-pekka.koskinen@nokia.com'; 'marco.stura@nokia.com'; 'John.Loughney@nokia.com'
Subject: [AAA-WG]: DCCA Draft 05: Tariff-Time-Change



Hi all, 

According to the DCC draft under section 5.1, support of Tariff-Time-Change is optional by the DCC client and Server. 

" 
   The Diameter credit-control server and client MAY optionally support 
   a tariff change mechanism. The Diameter credit-control server may 
   include a Tariff-Time-Change AVP in the answer message. 
" 

On the other hand and under the same section, it mandates the DCC client which does not support this functionality to terminate the DCC session if it receives a CCA with Tariff-Time-Change AVP included.

Under section 5.1, it reads: 
" 
   If a client does not support the tariff change mechanism, and it 
   receives a CCA message carrying the Tariff-Time-Change AVP, it MUST 
   terminate the credit control session, giving a reason of 
   DIAMETER_BAD_ANSWER in the Termination-Cause AVP. 
" 

The problem I see is the following: 
There is a very good possibility that a DCC server supports Tariff-Time-Change and DCC Client does not. 
This may cause a denial of service for an end-user which home Diameter CC server supports Tariff-Time-Change mechanism while it is at an access where DCC client does not.

Am I making sense here? 
Your thoughts please. 


Thanks, 
Ahmad