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

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 February 2014 16:16 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 323A01A01E5 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:16:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ipA38CAE_49f for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519071A01E3 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f418e000001099-2d-53062a7410d9
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 16.7F.04249.47A26035; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:16:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.28]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:16:50 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "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: Ac8uVwmX8kyxnXq1RqWJDX1E3tlbrQ==
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:16:50 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209783E82@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW6JFluwwcwzghZze1ewWUxZ8YfJ gcljyZKfTB5fLn9mC2CK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mq4d+Y+U8EN7ooPjx4wNTBu4O5i5OSQEDCR OLfoDBuELSZx4d56IJuLQ0jgCKPE5B9rWEESQgKLGSXuPYkGsdkE7CQunX7B1MXIwSEiUCIx tU0XxBQWsJFYdpUJpEJEwFHi0/VLLBC2nsTm0x/AxrMIqEr8OngQrJNXwFfi2m0FkDAj0Nbv p9aAtTILiEvcejKfCeIaAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsJUkVmy/xAgyhllAU2L9Ln2IVkWJKd0P 2UFsXgFBiZMzn7BMYBSehWTqLISOWUg6ZiHpWMDIsoqRozi1OCk33chgEyMwpA9u+W2xg/Hy X5tDjNIcLErivB/fOgcJCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYPT/spchPm/VresP5goo FDqbnxaoXWs7ea+o0kyPrZf575c4bc4P/X1WUH7Vhz1CfT3zfFqeB0q783+VM71w6nGwSeti j9xX3swL1qcprfg0c/v3KsHCm5IOP9OuF+Rcq1jas6t3gynTswl7MraZ3JQJPr7oLKOlaKjD H0fLLxNX8EvbcGyc6aDEUpyRaKjFXFScCAAjssMXNwIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/XsRj6E-oP3he6iyvD9CWxo-pzz8
Subject: [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: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:16:58 -0000

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