[Dime] [dime] #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info

"dime issue tracker" <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 12 February 2014 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 12A761A087B for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:43:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] 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 vSiCDSpl9_73 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11C21A087A for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46943 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WDUTT-0003zW-Lc; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:43:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com
X-Trac-Project: dime
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:43:15 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/50
Message-ID: <075.da0c5efd096e353975a7634294e686ff@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 50
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com, dime@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ben@nostrum.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: dime@ietf.org
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 07:43:31 -0000

#50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info

 Now (chapter 4.3):

    The OC-OLR AVP does not contain explicit information to which
    application it applies to and who inserted the AVP or whom the
    specific OC-OLR AVP concerns to. Both these information is
    implicitly learned from the encapsulating Diameter message/command.
    The application the OC-OLR AVP applies to is the same as the
    Application-Id found in the Diameter message header.  The identity
    the OC-OLR AVP concerns is determined from the Origin-Host AVP found
    from the encapsulating Diameter command.


 My understanding is that “who inserted the AVP” cannot always be learned
 from the encapsulating Diameter message, since “origin-host” may not
 always contain the host that inserted the OLR.
 A part from that, “whom the specific OC-OLR AVP concerns to”, could be a
 bit misleading… “whom” may be host, realm, or any other future ReportType,
 or even any other “narrowed scope” within the OLR. Last sentence is
 affected by this ambiguity as well.


 New proposal (related to new text proposed chapter 4.6, see to Issue #34):

 The OC-OLR AVP does not contain explicitly all information needed by the
 reacting node in order to decide whether a subsequent request must undergo
 a throttling process with the received reduction percentage.
 The following information is implicitly known from the received
 application answer and OC-OLR AVP, that is used by reacting node to
 identify subsequent requests that are requested to be throttled:

 a)The Application-ID is the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
   Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

 b)The Destination-Realm AVP (if required, see 4.6) is the value of the
 Origin-Host AVP of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

 c)The Destination-Host AVP (if required, see 4.6) is the value of the
 Origin-Host AVP of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-docdt-dime-
  maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com  |  ovli@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli    |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/50>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>