Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

["Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

the proposed conclusion was based on comments received so far (from Lionel, Nirav, Steve, MCruz, JJ). 
Now you seem to address two points:
a) There is no dependency to DOIC support of the client.
To address this I would like to propose rewording of the clarifying text for 5.5. as follows:

When an agent takes the role of a reacting node, the agent needs to bind a received OLR to the origin host of the client that initiated the request which corresponds to the answer containing the OLR. 

This would cover not only the case where an agent takes the role of the reacting node on behalf of a (or several) non supporting client, but also the case where an agent is configured to take the role of a reporting node (for realm-type reports) towards the client and at the same time the role of a reacting node towards the server.

b) There is no binding of the OLR to the orig-host of the client
Here I disagree. We have the 3GPP requirement to allow requesting different amount of reduction from different clients, and I think we have 3 options:
1. ignore the 3GPP requirement
2. introduce new report types as originally proposed in #35
3. introduce the binding between OLR and orig-host of the client.

So far I understood that people favoured option 3.

See also inline.

Ulrich



-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:55 PM
To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion


On Feb 20, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> #35: additional report types are proposed
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> I believe we can conclude, not to add additional report types. However, we agreed to add clarifying text to clause 5.5 as follows:
>  
> When an agent received an OLR in response to a request initiated by a client not supporting DOIC, this agent needs to bind the received OLR to the origin-host of the client.

I do not agree.

You proposal implies that the server's OLR only applies to that client.
<Ulrich>exactly, that was the intention</Ulrich>
 If there's an intervening DOIC agent, then the agent, not the client, is the reacting node from the server's perspective.
<Ulrich> the server's perspective is agnostic. The server does not know whether it's the client or an agent on the path that takes the role of the reacting node</Ulrich>
 But, short of adding an origin-host type, nothing binds the OLR to a particular client, regardless of DOIC support at the clients.
<Ulrich> the binding is always there, regardless of DOIC support at the client</Ulrich>

 Whether or not the client also supports DOIC doesn't change that. For DOIC-supporting clients, the agent has the additional option of reducing traffic by asking the clients to reduce traffic (making them reacting nodes from the perspective of the _agent_, but not the server.)  It doesn't have that option for non-DOIC clients.