Re: [Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.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 1EACC1AE135 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:11:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 G4cfKg4SUO2p for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613461AE157 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1c8e000005ceb-f7-529df49f1797
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9A.F8.23787.F94FD925; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:11:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.118]) by ESESSHC013.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.57]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:11:24 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2
Thread-Index: AQHO8DjJXSb826ZS2kaa0cmdua9w95pCkc5w
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:11:23 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972C3CE@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972C119@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519D427@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519D427@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972C3CEESESSMB101erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6CL3ODDD6dZ7SY27uCzYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGSu3XWMueDyFsWLW3OksDYwPmxm7GDk5JARMJCZsXMMKYYtJ XLi3nq2LkYtDSOAQo8S8m7dYIJzFjBIf/75kBqliE7CTuHT6BVMXIweHiICyxOlfDiBhYQF9 ic0Lr4CViAgYSDxcsJQRwjaSWPvuExOIzSKgInHjyBewZbwCvhJ/lq1mgpg/mVHiwIQesAZO gQCJHzv+soPYjEAXfT+1BqyZWUBc4taT+UwQlwpILNlznhnCFpV4+fgf1AeKEu1PGxgh6vMl Vp6/xQyxTFDi5MwnLBMYRWYhGTULSdksJGUQcR2JBbs/sUHY2hLLFr5mhrHPHHjMhCy+gJF9 FSN7bmJmTnq54SZGYLQc3PJbdwfjqXMihxilOViUxHk/vHUOEhJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUkt PsTIxMEp1cCo/fL5vuhph3onJq50/5rtLhS7pNRbQvaU3j8+z6B7dowy+jseTfbNrlISrp/z se/J/O+WJa+uGzVP6DUuU/NRLp7nY8T/ZXm4fjtzxIRG483uH5y609Z1HzTJXaix9Uk7yw+z OUYLt3zQVmK5fmb2In+ViU6n/zs4l7Jt5ZVYx6xxpDZlf58SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDts9GbZAIA AA==
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:11:40 -0000

Hello Ulrich,

You are right, it is 4.3 in version under development:
https://github.com/jounikor/draft-docdt-dime-ovli/blob/master/draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01.txt

Your proposal looks fine.
Best regards
MCruz

From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com]
Sent: martes, 03 de diciembre de 2013 16:03
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; dime@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2

Hi MCruz,

isn't this clause 4.3?

I agree that clarification is needed.
But isn't it so that the OLR contains some explicit information (e.g. the Report-Type) that is not implicitly learned from the encapsulating Diameter message?

My proposal:
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 reported percentage. To take this decision the reacting node must check

a)      whether the subsequent request's Application-ID matches the Application-Id received in the OC-OLR AVP's encapsulating answer command;

b)      if the Report-Type received in the OC-ORL is "host"
b1)  whether the subsequent request's Destination Host is present and matches the Origin Host received in the OC-OLR AVP's encapsulating answer command;
if the Report-Type received in the OC-OLR is "realm"
b2) whether the subsequent request' Destination Host is absent and the Destination Realm matches the Origin Realm received in the OC-OLR AVP's  encapsulating answer command;

Best regards
Ulrich



From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:56 PM
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: [Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2

Hello,

I would like to propose a clarification on 4.2
                ....
   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.

Some rephrasing may be considered:
   The OC-OLR AVP does not contain explicit information that may be

   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. When Report-Type is

   a Destination-Host, the identity

   the OC-OLR AVP concerns is determined from the Origin-Host AVP found

   from the encapsulating Diameter command.


Best regards
/MCruz