Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.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 AA8401ADF34 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:26:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 KEr9XHiDjWYK for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65FF1ADEB5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.199]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id DC73EC0885; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:26:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id BEAF5C80B9; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:26:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:26:54 +0100
From: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
To: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message
Thread-Index: Ac7sHN1kcwdoL1xIRoywlc8N1o+kQQABwsSA
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2901_1385634414_52971A6E_2901_2686_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E307743@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D1EC79@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D1EC79@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.5]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E307743PEXCVZYM13corpora_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2013.11.28.55715
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:26:59 -0000

Hi Nirav,

Not sure to understand the proposal or question.
The OLR is significant per application (piggybacking principle). So if the 3GPP decides to add specific AVPs in the OLR (that will be possible), what would be the need to add the OLR without the specific 3GPP AVPs as the OLR will be anyway handle by 3GPP aware entities?

Lionel

De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Nirav Salot (nsalot)
Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 10:33
À : dime@ietf.org
Objet : [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Hi,

As I understand IETF will define the base overload control solution as part of DOIC. Then 3GPP would adopt the defined solution for each of its application.
When that happens, 3GPP might want to add 3GPP specific AVP within OC-OLR AVP. Based on the current definition of the OC-OLR AVP this should be allowed since it contains "* [AVP]" in its definition.
e.g. for a given application 3GPP decides to add information into OC-OLR which changes the scope of the OC-OLR from application level to the provided information level.
Additionally, the reporting may want to advertise the OC-OLR at the application level scope - i.e. the OC-OLR without any 3GPP specific info.

So if the above is allowed, we will have the possibility of the reporting node wanting to include two instances of OC-OLR with the Report-Type="host".
And then we need to define the handling of multiple instances of OC-OLR in the DOIC draft.

So the questions are,

-          Is 3GPP (or any other SDO) allowed to extend the definition of OC-OLR by adding information into it?

-          If no, can we guarantee that application level scope of OC-OLR (which is what we have defined currently) is sufficient (and not restricting) to all the applications of 3GPP?

Regards,
Nirav.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.