Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 21, 2014, at 4:48 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> the proposed conclusion was based on comments received so far (from Lionel, Nirav, Steve, MCruz, JJ). 
> Now you seem to address two points:
> a) There is no dependency to DOIC support of the client.
> To address this I would like to propose rewording of the clarifying text for 5.5. as follows:
> 
> When an agent takes the role of a reacting node, the agent needs to bind a received OLR to the origin host of the client that initiated the request which corresponds to the answer containing the OLR. 
> 
> This would cover not only the case where an agent takes the role of the reacting node on behalf of a (or several) non supporting client, but also the case where an agent is configured to take the role of a reporting node (for realm-type reports) towards the client and at the same time the role of a reacting node towards the server.
> 
> b) There is no binding of the OLR to the orig-host of the client
> Here I disagree. We have the 3GPP requirement to allow requesting different amount of reduction from different clients, and I think we have 3 options:
> 1. ignore the 3GPP requirement
> 2. introduce new report types as originally proposed in #35
> 3. introduce the binding between OLR and orig-host of the client.
> 
> So far I understood that people favoured option 3.

That approach implies the 3GPP requirement is the _only_ case. The result is, a DOIC agent cannot apply a single OLR to requests from multiple clients, ever. I don't think that's what we want. 

I agree there may be times the server wants to send an OLR for a specific client, but I don't think it's the default case. I think that case would be better handled by a new report type, or by a new optional AVP that includes the targeted client's, so that an agent can apply the report to requests that include that identity as the Origin-Host.