Subject: RE: [Dime] Contradicting AVPs in 4006 ?

From: "STURA, Marco, VF-IT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:51:31 +0100

Actually in section 5.1.2 there is a paragraph saying

   If the client indicated support for independent credit-control of

   multiple services, a credit-control server that wishes to use the

   feature MUST return the granted units within the Multiple-Services-

   Credit-Control AVP associated to the corresponding service-identifier

   and/or rating-group.

Although I admit it is not crystal clear, but a client may request units for a service in CCR initial at command level (without using the M-S-C-C AVP) and the server may decide to use the multiple service feature by returning granted units for the service within the M-S-C-C AVP. This implies that no service-id is present at command level for subsequent requests. As a general rule the service-id should be present either at command level if no M-S-C-C is used, or at M-S-C-C level otherwise. An example of this is given in Flow IX.

Br,

Marco

  _____  

From: Liyaqatali [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: giovedì 28 dicembre 2006 13.11
To: Tolga Asveren
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Contradicting AVPs in 4006 ?

Hi Tolga,

Thanks for your response. 
Well, I agree with you that Service-Identifier AVP should not be present, if multiple services are used, but apparently, this isn't mentioned in the RFC hence I was a bit confused. I also agree that there may not be many scenarios where multiple parallel event based services are necessary but the reason I considered event based services is because it clearly brings out the contradiction. 
I also feel that conditional AVPs should be mentioned in the RFC like the way the presence of Subscription-Id AVP is mentioned in most of the sections of the RFC because these are optional AVPs at the command level. 
I was wondering, Is there a reason why it isn't explicitly mentioned in the RFC?

Regards,
Liyaqatali G Nadaf

Tolga Asveren wrote: 

Hi Liyaqatali,
 
I guess it makes sense to use the values present in
Multiple-Services-Credit-Control AVP if there is a contradiction. I even
would expect Service-Identifier AVP not to be present if multiple services
are used.
 
BTW, I am not sure whether event based scenarios for CHECK_BALANCE and
PRICE_ENQUIRY can be used with multiple services.
Multiple-Services-Credit-Control AVP does not have
Cost-Information/Check-Balance-Result AVPs. There is of course the wildcard
*[ AVP ], but I would expect these AVPs to be specifically mentioned, if
there was an intention to use them. There are probably not many scenarios,
where multiple parallel event based services are necessary to provide a
"single service experience" from user point of view.
 
    Thanks,
    Tolga
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Liyaqatali [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:04 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Contradicting AVPs in 4006 ?

Hi All,
 
I had a couple of questions about the command level AVP's and the
Multiple-service-credit-control AVP.
 
Suppose a event based CCR, with CHECK_BALANCE as the value in
Requested-Action AVP, is sent by the credit control client to the server,
so, which of the following AVP combinations should be considered by the
server to check the balance.
    -service-identifier AVP at the command level or
    -service-identifier AVP(s) in the Multiple-service-credit-control AVP or
    -both of the above AVPs
 
Similarly,  in the above scenario if the requested-action AVP had
PRICE_ENQUIRY as the AVP value, then wouldn't the service-identifier AVP at
the command level and
the Multiple-service-credit-control AVP be contradicting?
 
At a higher level, when should the command level AVPs in CCR gain priority
than the Multiple-service-credit-control AVPs?
 
I would appreciate if anybody can provide some inputs on this.
 
--
 
Regards,
Liyaqatali G Nadaf

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Liyaqatali <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:41:37 +0530

I agree with you on that. Surely section 5.1.2 hints towards that but
yet doesn't state it clearly. My main intension was to bring out the
contradictory and conditional AVPs which are not mentioned in the RFC.

Since RFC says that Subscription-Id AVP MUST be present in almost all
the cases, similarly, other, conditional required AVPs should be
mentioned.

For example: During Balance inquiry, server checks whether the account
balance can cover the cost of a certain service, without reserving any
units from the account at the time of the inquiry.

It is not mentioned in the RFC that Requested-Service-Unit AVP MUST be
present in case of CHECK_BALANCE. (Sorry for considering Event based
charging again). But it can be guessed that its a rating error.

BTW, Can you tell me does Event-Time-Stamp AVP, which is added in every
request, serves other purposes apart from being informational at the
server side?

Thanks in Advance.

Regards,
Liyaqatali G Nadaf

STURA, Marco, VF-IT wrote:

Actually in
section 5.1.2 there is a
paragraph saying

If the
client indicated support for independent credit-control of

multiple
services, a credit-control server that wishes to use the

feature
MUST return the granted units within the Multiple-Services-

and/or
rating-group.

Although I
admit it is not crystal clear,
but a client may request units for a service in CCR initial at command
level
(without using the M-S-C-C AVP) and the server may decide to use the
multiple
service feature by returning granted units for the service within the
M-S-C-C
AVP. This implies that no service-id is present at command level for
subsequent
requests. As a general rule the service-id should be present either at
command
level if no M-S-C-C is used, or at M-S-C-C level otherwise. An example
of this
is given in Flow IX.

Br,

Marco

From:
Liyaqatali [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: giovedì 28
dicembre 2006
13.11

To: Tolga Asveren

Cc: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: [Dime]
Contradicting
AVPs in 4006 ?

Hi Tolga,

Well, I agree with you that Service-Identifier AVP should not be
present, if
multiple services are used, but apparently, this isn't mentioned in the
RFC
hence I was a bit confused. I also agree that there may not be many
scenarios
where multiple parallel event based services are necessary but the
reason I
considered event based services is because it clearly brings out the
contradiction.

I also feel that conditional AVPs should be mentioned in the RFC like
the way
the presence of Subscription-Id AVP is mentioned in most of the
sections of the
RFC because these are optional AVPs at the command level.

I was wondering, Is there a reason why it isn't explicitly mentioned in
the
RFC?

Regards,

Liyaqatali G Nadaf

Tolga Asveren wrote:

Hi Liyaqatali,

are used.

Thanks,

Tolga

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

Hi All,

-both of the above AVPs

the command level and

--

Regards,

Liyaqatali G Nadaf

DiME mailing list

[email-masked]