Subject: [Dime] DOIC #70 - Proposed resolution to core issue

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:43:30 -0500

All,

The core issue raised in issue #70 is whether a client can receive an 
OLR of type host when the request sent by the client was realm routed.

I do not support the suggested change as there are scenarios where 
clients MUST be prepared to receive the OLR of type host when the client 
does not do server selection.  This is required for the scenario where 
agents do not support DOIC.  If the request does not contain a 
Destination-Host AVP then agents will be responsible for server 
selection.   An overloaded server will send an OLR of type host that 
will find its way back to the client.

It is true that this might cause unneeded OCS entries in the client in a 
scenario where the client will never do server selection for that 
overloaded server.  This concern can be addressed by making it up to 
local policy whether or not the client saves OCS for the overload 
report.  If the client knows that it will never do server selection for 
a server indicated in a host OLR then the client can choose to not save 
the overload report.

Based on this, I propose that we close issue #70 without changes to the 
DOIC specification.

The discussion about the handling of a mix of overload abatement 
algorithms should continue.  We can open a separate issue if needed to 
address that functionality.

Regards,

Steve