IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info - proposed conclusion

"Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> Fri, 21 February 2014 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.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 D7D0F1A043C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:27:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 iLcCqO6ZHqXC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CDFD1A043B for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:27:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s1L6RSeC020335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:27:28 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC003.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.34]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s1L6RScb022609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:27:28 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC014.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.45) by DEMUHTC003.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:27:28 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.14.242]) by DEMUHTC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:27:27 +0100
From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
To: ext Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org" <draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info - proposed conclusion
Thread-Index: Ac8uVwmX8kyxnXq1RqWJDX1E3tlbrQAduffA
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:27:26 +0000
Message-ID: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B407C@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209783E82@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209783E82@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.112]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 1526
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1392964048-00005322-D3AAA245/0-0/0-0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/R2zLqyFx76YrHS7jz9_sd57jauE
Subject: Re: [Dime] #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info - proposed conclusion
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: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:27:37 -0000

I agree
Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 5:17 PM
To: dime@ietf.org; draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] #50: OC-OLR AVP implicit info - proposed conclusion


Hello all,

My understanding is that the following conclusion is reached:

 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.

Will be replaced by:

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 value of the OC-Report-Type AVP within the OC-OLR AVP indicates 
which implicit information is relevant for this decision (see clause 4.6).


This conclusion is based on proposed conclusion for #Issue 34


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email