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

Jouni 
Please see inline.
Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 11:14 AM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Few comments here.

On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:54 AM, dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:

> #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
> 
> Text in clause 4.6  does not fully explain to which requests overload
> treatment of a given report type applies.
> Proposal:
> 
>    0  A host report.  The overload treatment should apply to requests
>       for which all of the following conditions are true:
>       a) The Destination-Host AVP is present in the request and its value
>          matches the value of the Origin-Host AVP of the received message
>          that contained the OC-OLR AVP.
>       b) The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
>          value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message
>          that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

It is perfectly valid to send a request that has Destination-Host AVP
but no Destination-Realm AVP. It just means the Diameter nodes must 
be adjacent peers. 
<Ulrich> ok, then let's remove b) from 0</Ulrich>

>       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>

>    1  A realm report.  The overload treatment should apply to
>       requests for which all of the following conditions are true:
>       a) The Destination-Host AVP is absent in the request.
>       b) The value of the Destination-Realm AVP in the request matches the
>          value of the Origin-Realm AVP of the received message
>          that contained the OC-OLR 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.

Same not as above.
<Ulrich> I understand that this "above" referrs to 0c), not to 0b).
 Same response as above. </Ulrich>

- JOuni

> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------+--------------------------
> Reporter:  lionel.morand@orange.com  |      Owner:  Ulrich Wiehe
>     Type:  defect                    |     Status:  new
> Priority:  major                     |  Milestone:
> Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli     |    Version:
> Severity:  Active WG Document        |   Keywords:
> --------------------------------------+--------------------------
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/34>
> dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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