Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:34:34 +0000

#51: OC-Supported-Features in requests
 
My understanding is the following conclusions is reached:

 Now:
 The OC-Supported-Features AVP SHOULD be included into every Diameter
 message a DOIC
 supporting node sends (and intends to use for DOIC purposes).
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

---

From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:19:06 +0000

I do not agree
I think the conclusion was to say:
The OC-Supported-Features AVP MUST be included into every Diameter request message a DOIC supporting node sends.

For OC-Supported-Features AVP in answer messages refer to issue #30.

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

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

---

From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:23:26 +0000

Yes, sorry about this, this was my understanding as well but I provided a wrong rephrasing.
My understanding is the following conclusions is reached:

 Now:
 The OC-Supported-Features AVP SHOULD be included into every Diameter  message a DOIC  supporting node sends (and intends to use for DOIC purposes).
 
Proposal:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014 10:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

I do not agree

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 The OC-Supported-Features AVP SHOULD be included into every Diameter  message a DOIC  supporting node sends (and intends to use for DOIC purposes).
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:05:59 -0600

+1

---

From: "Askerup, Anders" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:20:19 +0000

Is the intent that it covers both the reporting nodes and reacting nodes, i.e. both Client and Server supporting DOIC must include the OC-Supported-Features AVP if they support DOIC?

/Anders  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014 10:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

I do not agree

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:30:14 +0000

Hi Anders,

The clarification on the expected behavior of reporting node is covered in issue #30 :)

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Askerup, Anders
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 18:20
À : Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

/Anders  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014 10:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

I do not agree

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:30:26 +0000

+1

De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 16:06
À : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

+1

 Now:

Proposal:

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

To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

I do not agree

Ulrich

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

To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

 Now:

Proposal:

replace SHOULD by MUST

DiME mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

DiME mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:32:49 +0000

My understanding as well

From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Steve Donovan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

+1

De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Steve Donovan
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 16:06
À : [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Objet : Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

+1

 Now:

Proposal:

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

I do not agree

Ulrich

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

 Now:

Proposal:

replace SHOULD by MUST

DiME mailing list

DiME mailing list

Thank you.

---

From: "Askerup, Anders" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 17:49:16 +0000

Lionel,

but issue #30 is about the Answer message isn't? My question is if a Server sending a Request message must it include the OC-Supported-Features AVP or not?

/Anders

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Askerup, Anders; Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

Hi Anders,

Lionel

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

/Anders  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014 10:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

I do not agree

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

---

From: "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:50:04 +0000

Hi Anders

My understanding is that a reacting node puts OC-Supported-feature AVP in requests and reporting node put it in answers.

Then Overload control may also be used in the other way where the role of reacting and reporting node is exchanged. For example HSS can be a reporting node (as we want to address the HSS overload), MME being reacting. We can also have overload control in the other way, where MME is a reporting node (to address MME overload) towards HSS that is then the reacting node .
The two ways can be used simultaneously.
Furthermore, each way can use its own set of features/capabilities.

Best regards

JJacques 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Askerup, Anders
Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 18:49
À : [email-masked]; Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

Lionel,

/Anders

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Askerup, Anders; Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

Hi Anders,

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Askerup, Anders Envoyé : vendredi 21 février 2014 18:20 À : Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked] Objet : Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

/Anders  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: viernes, 21 de febrero de 2014 10:19
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

I do not agree

Ulrich  

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Maria Cruz Bartolome
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] #51: OC-Supported-Features in requests - conclusions

 Now:
 
Proposal:
replace SHOULD by MUST

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.