IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A4A1A07D5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:42:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sl6z1qYEWLYm for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60CD31A06BF for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:42:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d8e000002a7b-30-52f9fe9a302b
Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FB.EF.10875.A9EF9F25; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:42:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.172]) by ESESSHC005.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.33]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:42:34 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
Thread-Index: AQHPI+1LK95DWDMaH0qQEyVc/ebDNpqpv0FwgATFJ4CAAUePcIAAGAbg
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:42:33 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209772EE2@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <066.b54c2f5aeb31c9b3f88c96008120290d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <CD459A84-E32A-49F9-9F5B-95167F318746@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B259D@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <52F8E5A7.6030902@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B29A1@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B29A1@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6sfz+DDGb/VbCY27uCzYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGRMf7mQsWCtYcfTwQaYGxl+8XYycHBICJhLnHp9kgrDFJC7c W8/WxcjFISRwiFHiz5EzUM4SRon5K2azglSxCdhJXDr9AqiDg0NEQFni9C8HkLCwgL3E1xtn mEFsEQEHiTXPT7JA2G4S+4++BFvAIqAqcX/vE7AxvAK+Et/WPgCzhQRWMknM/qwNYnMKBEhs mLgXrJ4R6KDvp9aA2cwC4hK3nsyHOlRAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/WCFsJYlFtz9D1etILNj9iQ3C 1pZYtvA1M8ReQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk7CwkLbOQtMxC0rKAkWUVI3tuYmZOernhJkZg2B/c8lt3 B+OpcyKHGKU5WJTEeT+8dQ4SEkhPLEnNTk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwBgbnW4XvCZHq5dj GQvznzNyF7KK+N7bMTI1hSZHzvZmT8mdO9tXNuiJSkDNnQ03kn05d+ZWP1Jt6r5Rs1J389qu XMNHb853fSy8z2v3Vz/mtM00tQdCMt+N7i+ZPUF1OUe15POFv98XXG4Q5YkQbZB0Ohy1Kjcr +YtMzEdFZxVfg6p8DwM+JZbijERDLeai4kQANlo5rEkCAAA=
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:42:38 -0000

Exact, I agree.
Cheers
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 10:37
To: ext Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Steve,

I do not agree.

e.g. 
1. reacting node sends Request with application ID = x to reporting node 2. reporting node sends back answer (containing an OLR) with application ID = x 3. reacting node now may very well send  a new request with application ID = y to the reporting node without breaking any Diameter rules. 
The new request sent in step 3 is NOT subject to throttling according to the OLR received in step 2.
I hope this is not contentious.
In order to provide a complete list of conditions to say when an OLR of a given type applies to a new request, we should not let c) go by the board.

Ulrich


 


-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:44 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP


>>       c) The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
>>          request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
>>          Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.
> No need for this since we agreed that DOIC implicitly always refers to 
> the application on which the DOIC AVPs are carried in.
> <Ulrich>yes, we agreed on that, so c) is correct and it does not harm 
> to keep c)</Ulrich>
SRD> I don't see the reason for including this statement.  By
definition, an overload report
applies to the application ID in the answer message.  There is no way for the application-id in the answer message to be different than the application-id in the request message without breaking Diameter.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email