[Dime] Use of SourceID AVP in Agent Overload and Load control drafts

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Fri, 22 April 2016 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A924912E463 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkTjaSTiDRlr for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B927212D698 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EB08118C454 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:29:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D19AA238056 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:29:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::ec23:902:c31f:731c]) by OPEXCLILM7E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::b91c:ea2c:ac8a:7462%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:29:04 +0200
From: lionel.morand@orange.com
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Use of SourceID AVP in Agent Overload and Load control drafts
Thread-Index: AdGcl068okSqgAUnQBa17vO+IzGcqw==
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:29:04 +0000
Message-ID: <20257_1461331744_571A2720_20257_12979_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01E43A7C@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2016.4.22.122416
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/J1xA8gSOQtmgI46uu1fL-_NAXWA>
Subject: [Dime] Use of SourceID AVP in Agent Overload and Load control drafts
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:29:09 -0000


At the last IETF meeting, we have discussed the interdependence between the load control and the Agent Overload draft regarding the use of the SourceID AVP.

First of all, there is some inconsistency in the agent overload draft. The AVP is sometimes named OC-SourceID AVP and sometimes OC-SourcedID. This needs to be fixed.

Now, if we look at the definition of the OC-SourceID in the agent overload draft , we find:

6.3.  OC-SourceID

   The [OC-]SourceID AVP (AVP code TBD2) is of type DiameterIdentity and is
   inserted by the DOIC node that either indicates support for this
   feature (in the OC-Supported-Features AVP) or that generates an OC-
   OLR AVP with a report type of peer.

   It contains the Diameter Identity of the inserting node.  This is
   used by other DOIC nodes to determine if the a peer indicated support
   this feature or inserted the peer report.

This definition is interesting and should be kept from my point of view. I think that having an AVP identifying the source of DOIC node is a good point and this should remain.
I would be then in favor to define two separate AVPs, one identifying a OC source, another identifying a Load source.
I propose to keep "OC-SourceID" for the first one and "Load-SourceID" for the second one.

Additional advantage: if this approach is agreed, there is no need to link both drafts anymore.

Does it sound acceptable?

I will initiate issues aligned with this proposal. According to the conclusion of this discussion, they can be accepted or rejected later.




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.