Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 38A681AE5FE for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 YNwH89PLuVrO for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8791AE5EA for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.119.72.250] (173.234.16.35.rdns.ubiquity.io [173.234.16.35] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB9MIv8P031477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:18:58 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:18:51 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F256E4B0-E34D-4EDB-8428-A7D7DFC650A8@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCBC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.234.16.35 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
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 22:19:17 -0000

It's probably also worth adding some guidance on when it makes sense to define a new report type. For example, if I want to add a new AVP that can be safely ignored by a recipient that doesn't understand it, I probably don't need a new report type.

On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> We need a conclusion here so that I can actually write something
> into the -01. How about the following (I try to reflect as many
> points given here as possible):
> 
> 1) The basic principle for the Report Type use is that only one
>   OLR per report type is allowed unless the report type and the
>   OLR reflecting the new report type define exact semantics how
>   to differentiate between multiple OLRs with the same report
>   type. In 3GPP context, for example, a report type with an AVP
>   that identifies an APN could be such a differentiator.. and that
>   would need a new report type where an implementation exactly
>   knows to look for this additional AVP without guesswork or 
>   fuzzy heuristics.
> 
> 2) A new report type or a set of new report types require a new
>   feature to be allocated/defined so that both endpoints know how
>   to handle the new report type that was defined after the
>   publication of the baseline specification. The handling of the
>   new report types must be defined (along with the new AVPs it
>   might need to be included into the OC-OLR AVP).
> 
> 3) With 2) in place I do not care whether the OC-Report-Type is
>   enumerated or unsigned (flag vector?). I still favour Enumerated
>   myself as it forces the protocol designer to come up with a 
>   cleaner design ;)
> 
> 4) For the baseline we only define host and realm report types.
>   We do not allow multiple OLRs with these report types i.e.
>   single instances of OLRs with host and/or realm are allowed.
> 
> - Jouni
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime