Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Nirav,

I agree with Lionel that what you propose would result in either a new
report-type or abatement algorithm.  There needs to be a way of telling
the reacting node why the new AVP is present.  There could be, for
instance, two different extensions that need the same AVP included in
the overload report.  We need a way of indicating to the reacting node
which of those extensions should be used.

Steve

On 11/28/13 10:11 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) wrote:
>
> Hi Lionel,
>
>  
>
> I am not sure if defining new ReportType for every new AVP 3GPP would
> add for a specific application would be a good solution.
>
> I thought ReportType would indicate if the corresponding OC-OLR should
> be used while sending the traffic towards the host or towards the realm.
>
> So from that point of view, all the OC-OLR generated by the server
> should have ReportType=host. i.e. when the reacting node sends the
> traffic towards that host, it should make use of the corresponding
> OC-OLR. Now, this OC-OLR may contain the AVPs defined by DOIC draft as
> well as 3GPP application specific AVPs.
>
>  
>
> In general, I was just thinking that it may be good idea to define
> some of the principles such as
>
> -          More than one instances of OC-OLR with ReportType=host may
> be present in the answer message if the OC-OLR definition is extended
> by the application using the same. In that case, it is the
> responsibility of the application to define the valid combination of
> OC-OLR instances in a given message
>
> -          If the reporting node includes more than one instance of
> OC-OLR, the reporting node shall always include all the active
> instances of OC-OLR in a response message.
>
> -          When the reacting node receives one or more instances of
> OC-OLR with the given ReportType and with new timestamp value, it
> should overwrite all the existing OC-OLR of the same ReportType.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Nirav.
>
>  
>
> *From:*[e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 28, 2013 7:39 PM
> *To:* Nirav Salot (nsalot)
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same
> type) within a response message
>
>  
>
> Hi Nirav,
>
>  
>
> The Report Type should be able to differentiate such cases. In your
> example, I would define a specific Report type.
>
> But difficult to appraise all the future use cases. But for me, the
> main use of the report type is to differentiate OC-OLR received in the
> same message.
>
> And it is the reasons of my recommendation. Actually, the exact
> wording will be a "SHOULD" saying that it is recommended but you may
> have serious reasons to do otherwise.
>
>  
>
> Lionel
>
>  
>
> *De :*Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 28 novembre 2013 13:00
> *À :* MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN
> *Cc :* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Objet :* RE: DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type)
> within a response message
>
>  
>
> Lionel,
>
> 3gpp may define an optional avp which can be included by the reporting
> node if it wishes to do so. E.g. APN can be additionally included by
> the reporting node to indicate APN specific overload within the given
> application.
> In that case, the reporting node may also want to indicate application
> level overload without including the APN (e.g. this overload report is
> applicable to all other APNs).
>
> And hence there is a possibility of including multiple instances of
> the overload report.
>
> I am not suggesting that 3gpp will define APN (or any other avp)
> within overload report. But later, if 3gpp need to define the same,
> then corresponding handling needs to be defined within IETF now.
>
> Regards,
> Nirav.
>
> On Nov 28, 2013 3:56 PM, "[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Nirav,
>
>  
>
> Not sure to understand the proposal or question.
>
> The OLR is significant per application (piggybacking principle). So if
> the 3GPP decides to add specific AVPs in the OLR (that will be
> possible), what would be the need to add the OLR without the specific
> 3GPP AVPs as the OLR will be anyway handle by 3GPP aware entities?
>
>  
>
> Lionel
>
>  
>
> *De :*DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] *De la part de* Nirav Salot
> (nsalot)
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 28 novembre 2013 10:33
> *À :* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> *Objet :* [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same
> type) within a response message
>
>  
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> As I understand IETF will define the base overload control solution as
> part of DOIC. Then 3GPP would adopt the defined solution for each of
> its application.
>
> When that happens, 3GPP might want to add 3GPP specific AVP within
> OC-OLR AVP. Based on the current definition of the OC-OLR AVP this
> should be allowed since it contains "* [AVP]" in its definition.
>
> e.g. for a given application 3GPP decides to add information into
> OC-OLR which changes the scope of the OC-OLR from application level to
> the provided information level.
>
> Additionally, the reporting may want to advertise the OC-OLR at the
> application level scope -- i.e. the OC-OLR without any 3GPP specific info.
>
>  
>
> So if the above is allowed, we will have the possibility of the
> reporting node wanting to include two instances of OC-OLR with the
> Report-Type="host".
>
> And then we need to define the handling of multiple instances of
> OC-OLR in the DOIC draft.
>
>  
>
> So the questions are,
>
> -          Is 3GPP (or any other SDO) allowed to extend the definition
> of OC-OLR by adding information into it?
>
> -          If no, can we guarantee that application level scope of
> OC-OLR (which is what we have defined currently) is sufficient (and
> not restricting) to all the applications of 3GPP?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Nirav.
>
>  
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>  
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime