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

Steve,

Ulrich proposal was the following:

   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.

      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.

Since the text is for Host Report, and as it is introduced, I think original text is better.
Cheers
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 13:41
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Agreed, there is nothing contentious here.  I agree that the report applies only to the application ID included in the message carrying the overload report.

Ulrich's wording isn't clear on which messages are being referenced.  Or I wasn't looking at full context.  It might be better to try to change the proposed wording from:
How about changing Ulrich's proposal from:

      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.
to the following:

"The value of the application-ID in the Diameter Header of new request messages matches the value of the Application-ID is an active overload report."

Steve
On 2/11/14 4:50 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> wrote:

I think that there is no contentious issue here :)

I think that Ulrich is right saying that the reacting node needs to take into account the application-id to perform the abatement. Not when receiving the OLR... but when sending a new request.

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome

Envoyé : mardi 11 février 2014 11:43

À : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>

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

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime