Re: [Dime] Issue#35 conclusion

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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. If there's an intervening DOIC agent, then the agent, not the client, is the reacting node from the server's perspective. But, short of adding an origin-host type, nothing binds the OLR to a particular client, regardless of DOIC support at the clients.

 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.