Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

[<[e-mail]>]

At least, it is correct! ☺

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome
Envoyé : mardi 11 février 2014 15:00
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

Lionel, Nirav, all,

Maybe the note could be modified:

Note –the reacting node could be any agent in the path, and that in some error situations overload reports may be discarded by reacting nodes.

I added the case OLR could be discarded by reacting nodes, since it highlights a situation where the server will not know whether or not a valid OLR is received by reacting node.

Best regards
/MCruz


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 11:36
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

At least, it is not "the only sure way".
For instance, subsequent messages part of the same session (or pseudo-session) could also be used as indication for the reporting node that the OLR has been received by the reacting node (besides the reception of the OC-Supported-Features in the request).
It is why I was saying that this can be fixed per application/system.

Lionel

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome
Envoyé : mardi 11 février 2014 11:31
À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

Fine Nirav, I agree this is implementation specific.
My intention is that any reader realizes what this knowledge in the server implies when we talk about agents in the path. This is why I think this note is helpful.

Regards
/MCruz

From: Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 11:26
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

I do not agree regarding the complexity since it is highly implementation specific.
Lets not make any assumption in the protocol design.

Regards,
Nirav.

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:54 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

Hello,

I think it is important to highlight complexity for the server to  “guarantee that the reacting node already has received the overload report.”
I think this is the purpose of the sentence added by Steve.

Cheers
/MCruz

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nirav Salot (nsalot)
Sent: martes, 11 de febrero de 2014 11:20
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

I am also fine with Steve's proposed wording to recommend the inclusion of OLR but to not mandate it.

I am not sure about the following text, if it is absolutely necessary to add it.
Note - the only sure way, without proprietary mechanisms, to know that a reacting node has received an overload report is when the reacting node is a client and there is no agent between the client and the reporting node.

I prefer to remove it since I do not see as value addition.

Regards,
Nirav.

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:13 PM
To: Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

I'm fine with a recommendation.

But I have a general comment: when a MAY or even a SHOULD apply, it does not mean that it is NOT up to the node to do or not to do something. It does not mean that it is only an implementation option.
For instance, over a given interface, the related specification can say that some states are maintained by the server. And it could be decided to add some overload related info in such states. For instance again, the node can use this state to know if a remote node have been notified or not for instance. And in such a case, the server does not need to include an OLR in each message. It is just for illustration. The point is that you may have some cases for which the OLR in every answer might not be required.

I agree that having the OLR in every answer is fine… but it should be not mandatory in all cases I think. So OK for a "SHOULD" or "RECOMMENDED".

Regards,

Lionel

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2014 17:21
À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling

I agree with both Maria Cruz and Nirav. :-)

I suggest that we have wording saying the recommended approach is to include the overload report in all response messages for the reasons listed by Maria Cruz.

I also suggest that we include Nirav's proposal that if a reporting node knows that a reacting node has already received an overload report then it may choose to not send it again.  I don't think we need to including anything about how the reporting node knows but we should include wording about networks architectures that make it difficult to know.  The case of agents acting as reacting nodes for non supporting clients being one example.

We also need to make sure that the recommended approach is not precluded by Nirav's proposal.

I propose the following normative wording, which can be supplemented by Maria Cruz's reasons for recommending that the overload report is always included.

-----

A reporting node MUST ensure that all reacting nodes receive new overload reports.

It is recommended that a reporting node include overload reports in all answer messages sent to reacting nodes.

Note - the reporting node may also include the overload report in answer messages sent to non reacting nodes if that is more efficient.  The overload report will just be ignored by a Diameter node that does not support DOIC.

A reporting node MAY choose to not send an overload report to a reacting node if it can guarantee that the reacting node already has received the overload report.

Note - the only sure way, without proprietary mechanisms, to know that a reacting node has received an overload report is when the reacting node is a client and there is no agent between the client and the reporting node.
On 2/10/14 3:52 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:

Hello Nirav,



Any solution should balance different factors, efficiency could be discussed from different perspectives, but first we need to assure the mechanism we are defining is providing valid OLR to reacting nodes.



Your proposed text

" Additionally, in other cases, e.g. when the reporting node is not aware if the overload report is already provided to the reacting node, the reporting node may include the OLR in the response, to the request containing OC-Supported-Feature AVP."



If the reporting is not aware about whether or not overload report is provided to the reacting node, and it decides (since it is a "may") to do not send the OLR again, then overload mitigation mechanism will not work in case OLR was not properly received by corresponding potential reacting nodes. And we need to note that "reacting nodes" could be not only the client, but ANY agent used for routing (not only when the agent is providing service to a Realm, but when it is reacting on behalf of a non-supporting client).

Then, on one hand it is not simple to know when reacting nodes have valid OLR info (as explained below), but if OLR is not sent again (as per your proposed "may") then one or multiple reacting nodes do not have the required OLR, then overload mitigation will not work.



Therefore, in my opinion, the simplest way to provide required information is to provide OLR in ALL answers.



Best regards

/MCruz



-----Original Message-----

From: Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 10:42

To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



But Maria-Cruz,



How can we say that "including the OLR in all the answer messages is simple and efficient?"

It is simple for sure but not efficient.



A slightly different wording from what I proposed earlier is, When the reporting node has a new overload report that needs to be provided to a reacting node (by updating the earlier provided overload report or by providing the overload report for the first time), it shall include OLR in the response, to the request containing OC-Supported-Feature AVP, towards the corresponding reacting node. Additionally, in other cases, e.g. when the reporting node is not aware if the overload report is already provided to the reacting node, the reporting node may include the OLR in the response, to the request containing OC-Supported-Feature AVP.



Regards,

Nirav.



-----Original Message-----

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:03 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Nirav, all,



I think we should define an accurate and robust solution, as efficient and simple as possible.

I understand your proposal as a pure "may", but leaving it up to implementation does not assure reacting node has valid OLR information, what is basic for this mechanism to work.



Best regards

/MCruz



-----Original Message-----

From: Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 10:12

To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Maria-Cruz,



I fully agree with you on "sending OLR in ALL answers has some important advantages".

And we are not trying to prevent it - at least that is my intention.

But the main question is, are we trying to prevent any other possible implementation, which may be smarter and can avoid including redundant OLR in all the answer message?



Most probably, the very first implementation of overload control will include OLR in all the answer messages.

But at the same time, I do not want to restrict the developers which can come up with some nice tweaks and tricks to avoid sending the same information in every message. And this is where we need to be careful and avoid putting such restrictions in protocol definition.

What do you think?



This also the reason I was suggesting loose description of when to include OLR (from the reporting node point of view).



Regards,

Nirav.



-----Original Message-----

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome

Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 8:57 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Hello Ulrich, Nirav,



I agree with Ulrich that the text provided by Nirav is just a MAY, and whether or not the server sends an OLR in all answers shall not be just a MAY.



On the other hand, criteria provided by Ulrich on when OLR has to be sent requires the server has some knowledge:

a) the reporting node knows that the reacting node has already got the latest OLR

b) the reporting node is not overloaded (i.d. does not want a throttling) and knows that the reacting node has got an OLR that will soon expire

c) otherwise



Reporting node must have some knowledge about OLR reception/status in reacting node. How does server acquire this knowledge?

Take into account as well that a "reacting" node may be both an Agent (in case it provides service to a realm or acting on behalf of a non-supporting client)  and a Client. In the case of Agents, in fact the Server may not even know if this is going to act as a reacting node or just transparently, in fact, the server does not need to have any knowledge about what agents in the chain to the final Client.



Therefore, I definitely think that sending OLR in ALL answers has some important advantages:

- state-less implementation (transaction or session) is simpler,

- the server does not need to determine whether or not to send an OL to a reacting node

- the server does not need to bother whether an reacting node has already received an OLR or whether this OLR is still valid (has not expired).

- sending an additional AVP is not processing consuming, in comparison with required above checks (if this is not sent).

  In fact, in an overload situation, the easiest and least complex is to send information out to all affected/applicable nodes,

  and the latter should take care to take appropriate actions

- more robust solution, as no need to cater for all the checks on the need to send information,  for situations where an answer message is lost,  …





Best regards

/MCruz



-----Original Message-----

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)

Sent: viernes, 07 de febrero de 2014 10:59

To: ext Nirav Salot (nsalot); ext [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Nirav,



I'm afraid your proposed text does not reflect the intention.



"when it wants to provide/update....it shall include..." translates to "...it may include...".



"in other cases" in the given context translates to "when it does not want to provide/update..."





We have the following cases:

a) the reporting node knows that the reacting node has already got the latest OLR

b) the reporting node is not overloaded (i.d. does not want a throttling) and knows that the reacting node has got an OLR that will soon expire

c) otherwise



in case a) the reporting node may or may not replay the OLR in case b) the reporting node may or may not upddate the reacting node with the latest OLR in case c) the reporting node MUST include the OLR in the answer (the reporting node does not know whether this is a replay or an update)



Ulrich





-----Original Message-----

From: ext Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:49 PM

To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); ext [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Ulrich,



It seems we all are on same page but probably the proposed wording below is not the best.

How about the following.



When the reporting node wants to provide new overload report or wants to update the earlier provided overload report towards a reacting node, it shall include OLR in the response, to the request containing OC-Supported-Feature AVP, towards the corresponding reacting node. Additionally, in other cases, e.g. when the reporting node is not aware if the overload report is already provided to the reacting node, the reporting node may include the OLR in the response, to the request containing OC-Supported-Feature AVP.



Regards,

Nirav.



-----Original Message-----

From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:57 PM

To: ext [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Nirav Salot (nsalot); ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Nirav, Lionel,



I can understand Nirav's concern (although violating REQ10) and hop it is addressed by the modified principle 2':



2'. the reporting node (no matter whether overloaded or not) MAY decide not to return an OLR in response to requests which contained an OC-Supported-Feature AVP if it is aware that the reacting node already has got reasonable overload control information (e.g. the latest OLR, which may be an OLR requesting traffic reduction or an OLR indicating "no overload", or an old  but soon expiring OLR when the reporting node is not overloaded); otherwise (i.e. if it is not aware...) the reporting node (no matter whether overloaded or not) MUST return an OLR in responses to requests which contained an OC-Supported-Feature AVP.



I don't agree with Lionels do-what-you-want approach. Overload control will not work when we allow the reporting node not to update reacting nodes, which are not (sufficiantly) aware of the current overload status, with up to date OLRs.



Ulrich







-----Original Message-----

From: ext [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 10:20 AM

To: Nirav Salot (nsalot); Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling







-----Message d'origine-----

De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Nirav Salot (nsalot) Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2014 10:08 À : Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich); ext Steve Donovan; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Objet : Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Ulrich,



I am not sure about forcing this behavior on reporting node "otherwise (i.e. if it is not aware...) the reporting node (no matter whether overloaded or not) MUST return an OLR in responses to requests which contained an OC-Supported-Feature AVP."

The reporting node may simply not include OLR assuming that the earlier provided OLR will expire and the reacting node will stop throttling the traffic.



[LM] Agree. In other words, it is not deemed required for the default mechanism described in this draft. How and when the reporting node decides to include the OLR in the answer may depend on the application or on the implementation. At least, it is my current understanding.



As we had discussed earlier, there is no need for the reporting node to explicitly stop throttling at each reacting node at the same time. In other words, the reporting node can allow the natural expiry of the OLR to facilitate slow ramp of the signaling traffic towards it.



[LM] Agree



There may be other cases, e.g. when the reporting node knows that the last overload situation ended long time back in the past, there is no need for it to include OLR if currently there is no overload condition.



[LM] Agree



Rest of the principles below are fine with me.



[LM] Agree



Regards,

Nirav.



-----Original Message-----

From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[e-mail]]

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 2:23 PM

To: ext Steve Donovan; Nirav Salot (nsalot); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Actually we seem to agree on two principles:

1. Lack of OLR means "no change"

2. the reporting node (no matter whether overloaded or not) MAY decide not to return an OLR in response to requests which contained an OC-Supported-Feature AVP if it is aware that the reacting node already has got the latest OLR (which may be an OLR requesting traffic reduction or an OLR indicating "no overload"); otherwise (i.e. if it is not aware...) the reporting node (no matter whether overloaded or not) MUST return an OLR in responses to requests which contained an OC-Supported-Feature AVP.



Can people please confirm.



Ulrich



From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 4:35 PM

To: Nirav Salot (nsalot); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



Agreed.  To restate -- lack of an overload report does not change the current overload state for the host or realm.  If there is a currently active overload report then it continues to apply until it either times out or is explicitly changed with a new overload report.  If there is no currently active overload report then lack of an overload report implies there is no overload for the host and realm.



Steve

On 2/5/14 9:19 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) wrote:

I agree with Steve except the part "shouldn’t lack of OLR be interpreted as not overloaded?"



We had some discussion sometime back and thought that it is reasonable to not mandate the server to include the OLR in every answer message. E.g. when the server is capable of tracking what is sent to which client and hence wants to avoid sending information which is redundant. But this is optional implementation and at the same time need not be prohibited from protocol point of view.



So basically, the lack of OLR should not affect the previously received OLR at the reacting node. The reacting node can continue to react based on older OLR until the expiry of the validity-period or when the explicit OLR with "0" overload-metric is received.

In my view, this allows for flexible implementation at the reporting node and sound handling of OLR at the reacting node.



Regards,

Nirav.



From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 8:00 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



inline

On 2/5/14 7:57 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:

Ok then let's state that reporting nodes MUST insert an OC-OLR AVP in all answer messages that correspond to request messages which contain an OC-Supported-Features AVP (even when no load reduction is requested).

SRD> Why in every answer message?  Shouldn't lack of an OLR be interpreted as not overloaded?









Other criteria like REQ18 or REQ13 do not seem to matter.

SRD> Requiring an overload report in every answer does directly break REQ13, but requiring an overloaded node to look for an OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in every message is also substantial additional work, potentially more expensive than inserting OLRs.









For my clarification: I guess that the reacting node is not required to process every single OLR received (most will be replays anyway). What would be the procedure in the reacting node in order to minimize processing of replayed OLRs and at the same time minimize the risk too miss a new OLR?

SRD> That is the purpose of the sequence number.











-----Original Message-----

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Nirav Salot (nsalot)

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 5:27 AM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



I share the same opinion as Lionel.



Regards,

Nirav.



-----Original Message-----

From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 9:07 PM

To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



I understand that the real concern is when the reporting node DOES NOT insert the OLR in every answer.

So the options would be:

1- OC-OLR AVP in every answer

2- OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in every request + OC-OLR AVP in some answer when the current throttling performed by the client needs to be updated.



If there is no other criterion, the option 1 seems the best approach.



Lionel



-----Message d'origine-----

De : dime issue tracker [mailto:[e-mail]]

Envoyé : mardi 4 février 2014 09:49

À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN

Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Objet : [dime] #31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



#31: Sending OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP in request messages that survived a throttling



 It has been proposed to define an OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP that is  to be included by the reacting DOIC endpoint in request messages that  survived a throttling. This AVP would indicate the Sequence-Number

 (TimeStamp) of the OLR according to which the throttling (which was

 survived) is performed. Absence of this AVP indicates that currently no  throttling is performed.  Reporting DOIC endpoints may use this  information in order to detect whether there is a need to update the  reacting DOIC endpoint with the latest OLR.

 Absence of this feedback mechanism would result in the need for the  reporting node to send OC-OLR AVPs in every answer as the reporting DOIC  endpoint cannot know whether the reacting DOIC endpoint is actually doing  the right thing with regard to throttling/not throttling.

 The feedback mechanism improves robustness as it allows the reporting DOIC  endpoint to detect and correct inappropriate throttling by the reacting  DOIC endpoint (caused by whatever reason).

 The feedback mechanism also allows to address REQ 18 from RFC 7068.

 In summary it is proposed to define the OC-Ongoing-Throttling-Info AVP to  be used in request messages that survived a throttling.







_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.