[Dime] OVLI: clarification in 4.2

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 13:56 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 B38CD1ADDBD for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 NCisecK7AFDJ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100AD1A802D for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f388e0000057e0-5a-529de2f14d26
Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6D.4E.22496.1F2ED925; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:56:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.118]) by ESESSHC009.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.45]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:56:01 +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: Ac7wLSOy5PcGMIF3QXy86CAXysOX/A==
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:56:00 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972C119@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920972C119ESESSMB101erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7HR3ODDLZfNrCY27uCzYHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGUuftjEX9LtXrJ+4grWB8Y1dFyMnh4SAiUTDojfMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAROMEq0vJ/MDOEsZpRYcf0UC0gVm4CdxKXTL5i6GDk4RASUJU7/cgAJCwtoSZz9 /pgNxBYR0Je40zKDCcLWk1je9ZARxGYRUJE48PkGO4jNK+Ar0fj3FVicEWjx91NrwOqZBcQl bj2ZzwRxkIDEkj3noY4TlXj5+B8rhK0o0f60gRGiPl9i2/HtLBAzBSVOznzCMoFRaBaSUbOQ lM1CUgYR15FYsPsTG4StLbFs4WtmGPvMgcdMyOILGNlXMUoWpxYX56YbGejlpueW6KUWZSYX F+fn6RWnbmIExsbBLb+NdjCe3GN/iFGag0VJnPc6a02QkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYm Dk6pBsaeVbLHZusvedy9Nefwxym2Sd0/Te7/OyjA7n/EZZG8qjDHbFlxWbGaZ3pMevP9VB76 l0z+HF/722xa93qWVfH2c8Iv2kcuMJjIdu8+2zsvHqsbpcu/CZQbCwYvymBg2blk3uyeu4/D I6bMXqxdF7RSoCG71Ikh8Ol0vunlR/6orS4SKSp/xarEUpyRaKjFXFScCACh8JkBWwIAAA==
Subject: [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 13:56:07 -0000

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