IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 07:57 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 A4BBB1AE13E for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:57:25 -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 iJeOog3Wn57Z for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x236.google.com (mail-bk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E941ADEB4 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id v16so1784180bkz.41 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:57:17 -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=RKatohB895NgdKr8AP47wEtxgZrCjYvllBBEuqK3zf4=; b=cEI2WtNDwZLbpjVXghsGqBpkEtvi/HzOWufKLmnWj6IPlg8OBkjEbGnf1ZfTJma6oo sgjqDNOmufx7goz3fjuoghhH0jum7ZSNT9yk3ajQL/I1awkYzcrAGubhzEAwlbupq9M3 ZWwom1SjAL8Lprz6yMAX0iojh6Go72O9NSbaHFVnhpg+5bd1JO3Nw6vfhBT+EYoVXeqN V4TrXNPvNVkJHNcntHe83sMJM9p4TyDo7ZkRLVop+EDTfRvXfBzhJwYl4ybrerqixaAo /qoC90+coVsVsPIjXSa8qvaV1Lqc5ThcMCL4PVeMzVwVKXS3gGpOBa5Pp+0Xap6/ifXZ fSeg==
X-Received: by 10.205.9.131 with SMTP id ow3mr39849bkb.152.1386662237625; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:57:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:6e8:480:60:20b9:7452:797c:e240? ([2001:6e8:480:60:20b9:7452:797c:e240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j6sm10749740bki.17.2013.12.09.23.57.13 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:57:13 -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: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D959@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:57:13 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B4A6453-CBF0-48BE-B917-96B279229D3C@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCBC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D959@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: Nirav Salot <nsalot@CISCO.COM>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:57:25 -0000

On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) <nsalot@CISCO.COM> wrote:

> Jouni,
> 
> I am fine with the principles you have mentioned below for Report Type.
> I also prefer to use enumerated type for this AVP if that does not risk the extendibility of this AVP.
> 


Ok. Good.

- Jouni


> Regards,
> Nirav.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 5:30 PM
> To: dime@ietf.org list
> Subject: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
> 
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email