IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

"Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> Mon, 24 February 2014 13:04 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 594921A0862 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:04:12 -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 zPPnyNlG6ylk for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A991A0479 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 05:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s1OD46GK031230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:04:07 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id s1OD46Mo024919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:04:06 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC013.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.44) by DEMUHTC004.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:04:05 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.14.242]) by DEMUHTC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.44]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:04:05 +0100
From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
To: ext Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion
Thread-Index: Ac8uORl1Xn9wvmyrSf2I+rd4YT2PBgATUamAABiWF1AACvi8gAAJQgcAAImOXtA=
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:04:04 +0000
Message-ID: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B4422@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3F63@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <77A3D88E-DDC7-494A-8357-C0F8594A6310@nostrum.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B4177@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <53077659.1030909@usdonovans.com> <6D78C2FB-F3A0-4BC5-BEC4-79D8920EE710@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D78C2FB-F3A0-4BC5-BEC4-79D8920EE710@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.116]
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: 1625
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1393247047-00005322-98E3D5C9/0-0/0-0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/YARJBuVumWEe2ZuKMgYOOfRDUUU
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:04:12 -0000

See inline

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ben Campbell
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:18 PM
To: Steve Donovan
Cc: dime@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion


On Feb 21, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> My other concern is that this puts a lot of extra onus on the agent even for the case where the reporting node does not want to differentiate overload reports.  To this end I suggest we add an indication in the OLR marking the reports that are specific to just the Origin-Host in the request.  Absence of the "single-client-only" AVP would mean that the report applies to all clients.  Presence of the AVP would indicate that the OLR applies to the Origin-Host.

I support this approach. And of course, being me, I would like that AVP to contain the Diameter Identity of the client in question.
<Ulrich>why would there be the need to explicitly signal the the client's Diameter Identity? Isn't this information somehow available at the agent?</Ulrich>

But I wonder--should this be limited to clients? Should it be possible for the server to bind an OLR to a particular _agent_? That is, some node on the message path that is not the Origin-Host? For adjacent agents, this is easy--the server only sends the OLR to that agent. But that won't work for non-adjacent agents.
<Ulrich>this shall be limited to clients.</Ulrich>
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email