Re: [Dime] open issues #1 in DOIC

On Nov 29, 2013, at 3:48 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:

> Actually, I realized that we are redefining something somehow already in use in RFC 6733:
> 
> 9.6. Correlation of Accounting Records
> 
> 
>   If an application uses accounting messages, it can correlate
>   accounting records with a specific application session by using the
>   Session-Id of the particular application session in the accounting
>   messages.  Accounting messages MAY also use a different Session-Id
>   from that of the application sessions, in which case, other session-
>   related information is needed to perform correlation.
> 
> We could maybe reuse the same type of wording to simplify the definition:
> 
> Pseudo-session applications are applications that
> do not rely on the Session-Id AVP for correlation 
> of application messages related to the same session
> but use another session-related information for this
> purpose. The 3GPP defined Cx application [3GPP.29.229]
> is an example of a pseudo-session application.
> 
> OK?
> 

I think that's generally okay, but it might be useful to be explicit on the answer to the original question, that is, whether we assume all requests in a pseudo-session go to the same server. 

> Regards,
> 
> Lionel
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
> Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 10:01
> À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN
> Cc : dime@ietf.org list
> Objet : Re: [Dime] open issues #1 in DOIC
> 
> 
>   Pseudo-session applications:
> 
>      While this class of application does not use the Diameter
>      Session-ID AVP to correlate requests, there is an implied ordering
>      of transactions defined by the application and except for the
>      Session-ID differences pseudo-session based applications are
>      generally assumed to behave like session-based application.  The
>      3GPP defined Cx application [3GPP.29.229] is an example of a
>      pseudo-session application.
> 
> 
> Would this suffice?
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 10:38 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> For me, "pseudo-session" refers to session-based oriented applications that do not rely on the session-id for message correlations but on something else e.g. user-name. So it is implied that the same server is contacted by the client managing the session. In the Cx example, the same origin-host will be used in the client-initiated requests after the initial exchange and the server discovery phase.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Lionel 
>> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen
>> Envoyé : vendredi 29 novembre 2013 09:30
>> À : dime@ietf.org list
>> Objet : [Dime] open issues #1 in DOIC
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>>          [OpenIssue: Do we assume that all requests in a pseudo-session
>>          typically need to go to the same server?]
>> 
>> 
>> The example here is in context of Cx. Not that I am expert on Cx (or anything)
>> but based on the CCF the requests _may_ have destination-host. Thus, I assume
>> that it is an implementation issue whether pseudo-sessions need to go to the
>> same server.. I guess we cannot have such firm requirement. Correct?
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime