Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 12:55 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 5C8421AE2B7 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:55:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 OhyH-4ZR4BXO for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22f.google.com (mail-bk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204FD1ADF32 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so1361917bkb.34 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:55:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QIwec+ZNmsviEbWUuks4eLkuGiC0fVgWqIj1RBOK+g8=; b=M8AVm8QQ14h+SatIiZ38CbE6nxYnGXN9sWzdUGGBV9ZVtYYRtO/pvJEU2EusyJwF2k 0NGjL7ksfv2GZVS0avP02fzrCqT79O2EyBuWB8g0VLf69HZK0wgC1lvVVx+SmHd07/8H DFg6JKWQfGfqMdtQLKRMnCikb8GYnNoX1OTiOtZO0WfpNJZFwFIte6qUqhdZUhc2ff2H ayqGMoUKYf9QQ2EaaryUO8tdgz8JvX1gaS9XXBDoaeQ0vtzptE9l+QvHUX4YyAFznF0K zgNiXhq4w6qRz2FK3871xaM7AS9wtgbOv7CqQ3FJen63jpLLcy2UvPhuIw+QwfaGhcEj Zeaw==
X-Received: by 10.204.106.139 with SMTP id x11mr5922307bko.7.1386593725705; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:55:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:3c66:e081:e506:53b3? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:3c66:e081:e506:53b3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm8581094bkz.4.2013.12.09.04.55.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2013 04:55:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519E02B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:55:20 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1A402C59-E390-4C95-8E30-97F1F9D3EF0F@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DA3E@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <6CDCFC84-3048-40B9-91A4-1451FCC65F60@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCE5@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <09616DA2-D1ED-40EE-8E89-755DFCD81092@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519E02B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:55:33 -0000
In the same vein as folks wanted send OLRs with the new or old information, the feature vector should behave in a same way IMHO. That implies there are situations when a reception of the feature vector does not change anything in an endpoint current behavior. - Jouni On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:47 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote: > Isn't it so that the Feature-Vector (if present) always contains something that an implementation needs to act upon? > > Ulrich > > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:12 PM > To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 > > Ulrich, > > On Dec 6, 2013, at 3:03 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jouni, >> >> thank you for your response. >> >> With regard to 3) >> I still fail to see the usecase for Sequence-Number or TimeStamp within OC-Feature-Vector. Please clarify. > > Since we also allow extending the OC-Feature-Vector beyond recognition, > it has good chances become a rather complex grouped AVP. In that context > the Sequence-Number allows an easy and quick way to check if the feature > vector contains something that an implementation needs to act upon. > >> With regard to 4) >> This was not obvious to me. (The obvious typo is the missing "of" between "one" and "the"). > > Ack. Fixed the missing 'of'. > > - Jouni > >> >> Best regards >> Ulrich >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:17 AM >> To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) >> Cc: dime@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 >> >> >> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> here are comments to clause 4.1: >>> >>> 1. The OC-Feature-Vector AVP is no longer a vector; the name of the AVP may be misleading. Proposal is to rename it to "OC-Supported-Features AVP" >> >> OK with me. >> >>> 2. The OC-Feature AVP is a vector of features. Proposal is to rename it to "OC-Feature-Vector AVP" >> >> OK with me. >> >>> 3. The OC-Sequence-Number within OC-Feature-Vector only makes sense if the receiving reporting endpoint can determine the identity of the reacting endpoint (which is not necessarily the origin host (client), >> >> My original proposal was to have seqnr as a timestamp. Some folks argued >> it is no good and suggested seqnr. I still think time makes more sense than >> seqnr. >> >>> it may be an agent and it may not always be the same agent), and if the reporting endpoint is required to store the OC-Feature-Vector / reacting-endpoint-identity pair (which I think both is not required). The reporting endpoint can base its processing logic on the actually received OC-Feature-Vector value, no matter whether it is brand-new or old but stil valid. Proposal is to delete OC-Sequence-Number AVP from OC-Feature-Vector. >> >> Do not agree removing it. >> >>> 4. The text >>> >>> The reporting node that sends the answer also includes the OC- >>> Feature-Vector AVP that describe the capabilities it supports. The >>> set of capabilities advertised by the reporting node depends on local >>> policies. At least one the announced capabilities MUST match >>> mutually. If there is no single matching capability the reacting >>> node MUST act as if it does not implement DOIC and cease inserting >>> any DOIC related AVPs into any Diameter messages with this specific >>> reacting node. >>> >>> is not clear. Would the reporting node include the OC-Feature-Vector AVP in the answer only if there is at least one matching capability? >> >> Because then they have found a way to exchange something that both ends >> know how to handle it. >> >>> Mandating the reacting node to cease for all time inserting OC-Feature-Vector AVPs if it did not get back >> >> There is an obvious typo. It should say: >> >> policies. At least one the announced capabilities MUST match >> mutually. If there is no single matching capability the reporting >> node MUST act as if it does not implement DOIC and cease inserting >> any DOIC related AVPs into any Diameter messages with this specific >> reacting node. >> >> - JOuni >> >> >>> at least one match is also not ok. The request might have been a realm-type request (i.e. without Destination Host) and the reacting node cannot control whether subsequent requests will take the same path to the same reporting node. >>> Even if the request contains a destination host the reacting node cannot know wether the reacting node's capabilities have been modified by the time a subsequent request is sent. >>> Proposal is to keep only the first sentence and delete the rest. >>> >>> Ulrich >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DiME mailing list >>> DiME@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >
- [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- [Dime] Conclusion for OC-Feature-Vector - was Re:… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1 Ben Campbell