IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Tue, 11 February 2014 10:38 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 850551A0933 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:38:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 XA1GE65CwpAE for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8983E1A07D5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 02:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-40-52f9fd94a763
Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8A.2B.04853.49DF9F25; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.172]) by ESESSHC005.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.33]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:38:12 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
Thread-Index: AQHPJm6DlWmMf1mPE0uklIAv2DU+a5qv3NoQ
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:38:12 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209772ED3@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <066.b54c2f5aeb31c9b3f88c96008120290d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <CD459A84-E32A-49F9-9F5B-95167F318746@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B259D@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <52F8E5A7.6030902@usdonovans.com>
In-Reply-To: <52F8E5A7.6030902@usdonovans.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7Uvz+DDE7bW8ztXcHmwOixZMlP pgDGKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6Mlq2PmQvOcFdMvv6FtYFxKWcXIyeHhICJxJe2c0wQtpjEhXvr 2UBsIYETjBLdByO7GLmA7CWMEuvXfGIESbAJ2ElcOv0CqIGDQ0RAWeL0LweQsLCAvcTXG2eY QWwRAQeJNc9PskDYRhI9f+eAzWQRUJX42LGeHcTmFfCVmHfqIivE/MeMEhu27QKbySmgJ3G8 JQCkhhHonu+n1oDdxiwgLnHryXyoOwUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWklh0+zNUvY7Egt2f2CBs bYllC18zQ+wVlDg58wnLBEbRWUjGzkLSMgtJyywkLQsYWVYxShanFhfnphsZ6OWm55bopRZl JhcX5+fpFaduYgTGxcEtv412MJ7cY3+IUZqDRUmc9zprTZCQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEh RiYOTqkGRtWPkh/X3Pyzp/dMmOrGJydTb/q1STgkxU3df05E2cNQjevPI6V+7ojjtdtrFj1b KP9svQ3/VR3G3UxdYREnz99me1R0MfOk/AJ+U3W1B5mW2zPq9Zz3lU3TucKwdaubpnfMLNNp Syqmmh5hEpQU+bq1g89Y8Ou0950SG3uChVbFbJCQsmbcrMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAIHCVgNZAgAA
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP
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, 11 Feb 2014 10:38:16 -0000

Steve,

I prefer this text to remain, as Ulrich proposed, since it clarifies.
It refers to new requests that need to match same application Id as in the answer that includes the OLR. (It does not refer to the answer of a request).
One endpoint can send requests for multiple applications, we have  not restricted this.

Best regards
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan
Sent: lunes, 10 de febrero de 2014 15:44
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #34: Semantics of OC-Report-Type AVP


>>       c) The value of the Application-ID in the Diameter Header of the
>>          request matches the value of the Application-ID of the Diameter
>>          Header of the received message that contained the OC-OLR AVP.
> No need for this since we agreed that DOIC implicitly always refers to 
> the application on which the DOIC AVPs are carried in.
> <Ulrich>yes, we agreed on that, so c) is correct and it does not harm 
> to keep c)</Ulrich>
SRD> I don't see the reason for including this statement.  By
definition, an overload report
applies to the application ID in the answer message.  There is no way for the application-id in the answer message to be different than the application-id in the request message without breaking Diameter.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email