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

Susan, am I correct in reading that to mean that while it may only make sense to have one host report or one realm report, this may not be true for all future report types, and that it should be up to the definition of each report type to allow or disallow multiple instances? If so, I agree.

Any report type that allows multiple instances will need to describe how to handle (or avoid) potential conflicts.

On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:12 AM, Shishufeng (Susan) <susan.shishufeng@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Nirav,
>  
> For now, I couldn’t see the need to have more than one instance of the overload report with the same report-type, i.e. host or realm. But to allow extensibility if needed in the future, whether some texts can be written in the IETF e.g. Multiple OC-OLR AVPs exist with different report types, if it is not the case, it is the application where multiple OC-OLR AVPs are allowed with the same report type to specify the details how to differentiate the information contained in these OC-OLR AVPs. Thus we can move on without having to addressing the issue now in the base solution.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Susan
>  
> From: Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:nsalot@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 8:00 PM
> To: lionel.morand@orange.com
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] 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, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com> 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:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Nirav Salot (nsalot)
> Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 10:33
> À : dime@ietf.org
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime