Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP
Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 09:13 UTC
Return-Path: <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640581294DB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 38ONDEyTHhYb for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FAF1293E4 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id o140so5636982lff.1 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kyo8d9nXvwu5tArNWSfp1nKr4dPYVJ3nNWWv0SevHp0=; b=cE3zcKN6uwSGsve5hweScxeTHBWAyKZiYaMr0gL9NqFYVsKcDq0838vnTWAY1kQtQl JxK1eQpjs5WgOLFvMpJIINQ0VR+8opod5EIEwS0S+dVTmpLITIesRHvv0hCfbEza/oSC e88g9jz6gvdkK4iXBSttXyXQUn7UXAHgM8nqefe/T5tslvwX7t7lJMvXiAFoquPfrGTu 2dOGOliubTqhYoAxv8NWIAM3/UmP1Y+ci/UwrrFCv8BlYZMgLp9Jc4Qry4mG198gBf70 IxOfIlv4WaJLOX8g4CfEjRyUzCDL5gFrVqJDA5Oxr9jbeRaVTCWl3WX78eAqe2EyCGFA PnkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kyo8d9nXvwu5tArNWSfp1nKr4dPYVJ3nNWWv0SevHp0=; b=fQcxCnnTsLmW9fipEzGhf0+FiwlTLABqbWiDkheOn3UB+aGMuAKit9G2S5Wa140Exy k8l+8rX/dAbnR6dv+HxVIN8uGXnzTCOaqNl3p2tHzjPwuGBJwCx3Lic5SEaG1cLa8dii yT1AoKcG2avNVIeBdwK34AVwdXnhdpMem6qqJifkaX6WEsFL1GcKmE3nqXhn1b1VJ8c4 YD7W/C8YrVom8VPgJ0u4l9rJVF6k8wWMCvL77SFDLbfgtstq8BiwYhqlnrRoZqYtIAq8 kq7D5P2MxiM/x0iPipz7Lnq+USKcGL7aZ68kunK9ktaKbZGHqeWs/5FR2mGoXYENJayU 35gA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39limGE7GOlNsYvJVHigJTigQSCEKdbHwbGb0acfy5uZx76EhBHndqmEvb5xKP2tGFlmZRo2rAJr45iBZw==
X-Received: by 10.46.71.140 with SMTP id u134mr1787243lja.16.1487322795230; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.228.12 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:13:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB285704FE40A25057A8921300FC5A0@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497000AF59@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <HE1PR0701MB28573F830861577D13DBC916FC750@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497002AC18@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CABPQr243oqJxrC52+FAJUaLv9K2aQEuO0sD8ouD49rr5kXR4xQ@mail.gmail.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497002D184@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CABPQr24Y79vFg=ZW=xAPDi5NgBah2Mk2=ai0GzRg-zA5Z75-Gw@mail.gmail.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497002DB6B@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <CABPQr25sj_G-PN6aowSrbGfeYs_Wa-tNtmzsndXA+=Ca4U4qxw@mail.gmail.com> <CABPQr27D=Bga1by0c2+B=x5ZaE_a20GhL=R9h=QYagQE_+Nqqg@mail.gmail.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE49700334DE@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <HE1PR0701MB2857C1123305ABCF88BD295BFC420@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE4970038B30@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <HE1PR0701MB28578B05AAA4390541E22F54FC590@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497003A6FE@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497003F238@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <HE1PR0701MB285704FE40A25057A8921300FC5A0@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:13:14 +0300
Message-ID: <CABPQr250Kj02_DvMvwjou0LqtQX5RyO6ceUVs-c_kksmQZDgDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)" <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11411c76e04d6a0548b652e7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/Dy9hJ_VHa1gchMf-zwhA2yyTLEs>
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 09:13:22 -0000
Hi Yuval, To be honest, I find the Subscription-ID-Extension AVP description is a bit messy and hard to understand. Let me formulate the principles I would follow when describing it: - For old types the legacy Subscription-Id AVP (with M-bit set) SHOULD be used when communicating with both RFC4006 and/or RFC4006bis server. That will ensure a backward compatibility. - For new types the newly defined Subscription-Id-Extension AVP (with M-bit set) SHOULD be used as a future proof one. Thus, only RFC4006bis server will handle this AVP, while the legacy one will reply with AVP_UNSUPPORTED answer. All in all, future proof AVP - for future use, the legacy AVP - to keep BC. This interpretation will avoid any "playing" with M-bit and exclude potential new and legacy AVPs combinations from consideration. /Misha 2017-02-16 21:24 GMT+03:00 Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) < maryse.gardella@nokia.com>: > Hi Yuval, > > > > I think it is not needed to add text for the server side: the text blue > highlighted, this should be governed by M-bit Rule > > > > 1) For > > If the Subscription-Id-Extension is sent alongside > > the Subscription-Id AVP, its M-bit SHOULD NOT be set. > > Is it clear that only the Subscription-Id-Extension should not have > the M-bit set? > > > > 2) For new Types my proposal was to always have the M-bit set (I am not > sure we can have scenario with new subscription types which can be handled > by RFC4006 servers) > > > > If the type of the identifier is not one of the types listed in the > Subscription-Id-Type > > AVP, the credit-control client MAY send the Subscription-Id-Extension > AVP > > with the M-bit set, causing a credit control server that supports > > RFC4006 only, to reply with DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED. The credit > > control client MAY send the Subscription-Id-Extension AVP without the M-bit set, > > in this case, an RFC4006 only credit control server, SHOULD ignore the > > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP. > > > > To have: > > > > If the type of the identifier is not one of the types listed in the > Subscription-Id-Type > > AVP, the credit-control client SHOULD send the > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > with the M-bit set. > > > > 3) I also have an issue with: > > > > Exactly one AVP MUST be included inside the Subscription-Id-Extension > > AVP. > > And this is a more general comment to the text: there may be multiple > *[ Subscription-Id ], therefore more than one AVP can be present in > Subscription-Id-Extension > > > > > > Thanks > > Maryse > > > > *From:* Yuval Lifshitz [mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com] > *Sent:* jeudi 16 février 2017 17:41 > *To:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>; Misha > Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> > *Cc:* dime@ietf.org; Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Any comment on the text below? > > If none, I’ll just move ahead with the changes. > > > > *From:* Yuval Lifshitz > *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 9:03 PM > *To:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); Misha Zaytsev > *Cc:* dime@ietf.org; Yuval Lifshitz > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > The clarification makes sense. Hopefully the text didn’t became too > cumbersome - please let me know if you think I should remove any of the > text. > > Following modified text includes clarifications on the topic of the M-bit > as well as sending multiple AVPs. > > > > 8.58. Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > The Subscription-Id-Extension AVP (AVP Code TBD7) is used to identify > > the end user's subscription and is of type Grouped. The > > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP contains an included AVP holding the > > subscription identifier itself. The type of this included AVP > > indicates the type of the subscription identifier. If the type of > > the identifier is one of the types listed in the Subscription-Id-Type > > AVP, then the credit-control client SHOULD send the information in > > the Subscription-Id AVP, in addition to or instead of the > > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP. If the Subscription-Id-Extension is > sent alongside > > the Subscription-Id AVP, its M-bit SHOULD NOT be set. This is in order > > to preserve backward compatibility with credit-control servers that > support only RFC4006. > > When a credit control server that supports both > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > and Subscription-Id AVP receives both AVPs, it SHOULD ignore the > Subscription-Id AVP. > > If the type of the identifier is not one of the types listed in the > Subscription-Id-Type > > AVP, the credit-control client MAY send the Subscription-Id-Extension > AVP > > with the M-bit set, causing a credit control server that supports > > RFC4006 only, to reply with DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED. The credit > > control client MAY send the Subscription-Id-Extension AVP without the M-bit set, > > in this case, an RFC4006 only credit control server, SHOULD ignore the > > Subscription-Id-Extension AVP. > > Exactly one AVP MUST be included inside the Subscription-Id-Extension > > AVP. > > > > It is defined as follows (per the grouped-avp-def of [RFC6733]): > > > > Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: TBD7 > > > [ Subscription-Id-E164 ] > > [ Subscription-Id-IMSI ] > > [ Subscription-Id-SIP-URI ] > > [ Subscription-Id-NAI ] > > [ Subscription-Id-Private ] > > *[ AVP ] > > > > > > *From:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com > <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, February 13, 2017 7:19 PM > *To:* Yuval Lifshitz; Misha Zaytsev > *Cc:* dime@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Hi Yuval, > > > > I now realize the problem I have with the behavior for the RFC4006bis CC > server, is more due to missing statements on the RFC4006bis CC client side > (e.g. to allow this “robustness principle”). > > May be adding a clarification that when only old type(s) are needed to be > sent, the CC client should send both: multiple Subscription-Id AVPs and > corresponding multiple entries of Subscription-Id-Extension AVP, so that > the RFC4006bis CC sever can decide to consider Subscription-Id-Extension > AVP only when both are received. Do you think this could be added although > it looks a bit heavy? > > > > BR > > Maryse > > > > > > *From:* Yuval Lifshitz [mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com > <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>] > *Sent:* dimanche 12 février 2017 08:19 > *To:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>; Misha > Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> > *Cc:* dime@ietf.org; Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > *inline* > > > > *From:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com > <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:47 PM > *To:* Yuval Lifshitz; Misha Zaytsev > *Cc:* dime@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Hi Yuval, > > > > With the new Subscription-Id-Extension AVP to be marked with the M-bit as > a “may”, the way I understand it : > > - For old types the CC Client would send both Subscription-Id and > Subscription-Id-Extension AVPs: Subscription-Id with M-bit set and > Subscription-Id-Extension with M-bit cleared, however the behavior for the > RFC4006bis CC server when Subscription-Id-Extension is supported is unclear > to me) > > *[yuval] will add following clarification: “RFC4006bis CC server receiving > both Subscription-Id AVP and Subscription-Id-Extension AVP SHOULD ignore > the Subscription-Id AVP.” IMO, this would be along the lines if the > “robustness principal”* > > > > - For new types the CC Client would send Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > with M-bit set, so that RFC4006 and RFC4006bis server can reject by DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED > (5001) if not supported, would be the best approach. > > *[yuval] agree, will add clarification to the text* > > > > Maryse > > > > > > *From:* Yuval Lifshitz [mailto:ylifshitz@sandvine.com > <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>] > *Sent:* lundi 6 février 2017 21:31 > *To:* Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>; > dime@ietf.org; Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Hi Misha, > > RFC6733 gives the “{}” notation just as an example for a required AVP, it > does not say it is the only trigger for the missing AVP error. There are > AVPs that are marked as optional in ABNF, but are actually required in some > cases (e.g. Termination-Cause AVP). Also, note that RFC4006 says: > > The Subscription-Id AVP SHOULD be included to identify the > > end user in the credit-control server. > > > > Regardless of that, since it is not strictly defined in the spec I can > rephrase my answer as: > > “ > > In a case of a new type of subscription, not covered in RFC4006, the credit-control may send the new AVP with the M-bit set, causing any old server to reply with DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001). It may also send the new AVP without the M-bit set, here the server would just ignore the AVP, or, in the case that this AVP is required for its operation, reply with an error message (e.g. DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP) > > ” > > > > So far, I didn’t think the above clarification needs to be added to the > spec, but I can add that if you and Maryse feel that it would make it > easier to understand when to set the M-bit for these AVPs. > > > > Yuval > > > > *From:* Misha Zaytsev [mailto:misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com > <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 9:36 PM > *To:* Yuval Lifshitz > *Cc:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Hi Yuval, > > > > Just wondering what will be the outcome of this discussion? > > Have you concluded how it would be better to handle new future proof AVPs? > > If yes, are you going to update the draft with this info included? > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > /Misha > > > > > > 2017-01-31 23:07 GMT+03:00 Misha Zaytsev <misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com>: > > Hi Yuval, > > > > I almost agree with your explanations that you sent to Maryse, except one > bullet: > > > > In a case of a new type of subscription, not covered in RFC4006, it may > send the new AVP with the M-bit set, causing any old server to reply with > DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001). It may also send the new AVP without the > M-bit set, here the server would just ignore the AVP, but would probably > reply DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP (5005) as it will not have any subscription ID > > > > RFC4006 server should not reply with DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP (5005) result > code according to RFC6733, since Subscription-Id AVP is *not* marked as > required in CCR definition: > > > > A received command that is missing AVPs that are defined as > > required in the commands CCF; examples are AVPs indicated as > > *{AVP}*. The receiver issues an answer with the Result-Code set to > > DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP and creates an AVP with the AVP Code and > > other fields set as expected in the missing AVP. The created AVP > > is then added to the Failed-AVP AVP. > > > > The remaining part is according to the RFC6733 from my point of view. > > > > All in all, to set M-bit or not, depends on what reaction you want to see from RFC4006 server. > > > > /Misha > > > > > > 2017-01-30 11:29 GMT+03:00 Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>: > > Hi Misha, > > We didn’t consider the option of using a bitmap, but I’m open to this > idea. IMO, it would be more difficult managing the addition of new values > in the case of a bitmap than in the case of adding new AVPs. OTOH, adding > a bitmap will be less changes to the RFC. > > In our proposal the AVPs are marked as optional, and the M-bit **may** be > set. I sent an explanation to Maryse on the M-bit – please see below, and > let me know if you have comments on that. > > As ABNF cannot show the concept of “one and only one AVP” I will update > the text to state that explicitly (added: https://github.com/lbertz02/ > rfc4006bis/issues/18) > > > > Yuval > > > > *From:* Misha Zaytsev [mailto:misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:21 PM > > > *To:* Yuval Lifshitz > *Cc:* Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > > Hi Yuval, > > > > Thanks a lot for your clarifications! Now it seems I see your concern. > > > > As I can see the problem is that there is no possibility to extend the > defined AVPs of type Enumerated in a backward compatible way. For me it > means that all enumerate AVPs defined in RFC4006 (listed in section 12) is > a matter of your investigation. Not the grouped ones, but the ones that are > used as indicators in these grouped AVPs. > > > > Following the recommendations in https://tools.ietf.org/ > html/rfc7423#section-5.6 that you pointed out, I think bitmask based AVPs > may be a way out in the current situation. Such AVP will be marked as > mandatory. While only one bit of this bitmask MUST be set. > > > > Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX > > [ Subscription-Id-Type-Indicator ] > [Subscrition-Id-Data] > > > Have you considered this option? Or probably I'm missing something.. > > > > However, if we follow the way you are proposing with several mutually > exclusive AVPs, then these AVPs should be marked as not mandatory. While in > the description of the appropriate grouped AVP it should be stated that > only one of these AVPs MUST be present. > > > > /Misha > > > > > > 2017-01-29 11:29 GMT+03:00 Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>: > > Hi Misha, > There is nothing “well known” in these issues and I’ll be happy to clarify! > > (1) During IETF96 a question came regarding the support of the IMEI user > equipment type – currently not one of the enumerated types of the > User-Equipment-Info-Type AVP (IMEISV is there but not IMEI). As a result of > this discussion, and due to the enum extension limitations (see here: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7423#section-5.6), we were asked to do an > analysis on which enumerated AVPs requires extensibility. The results were > captured in the following ticket: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ > dime/ticket/95 > For better clarity I’m posting here the actual analysis of AVPs. Some of > them didn’t need to be extensible (in our view), some of them were already > extensible and the rest were added to the ticket: > > AVP Section > Attribute Name Code Defined Data Type > ----------------------------------------- > CC-Money 413 8.22 Grouped - not extensible, does not > need to be > Cost-Information 423 8.7 Grouped - not extensible, does not > need to be > Final-Unit- 430 8.34 Grouped - not extensible, will be > replaced by QoS-Final-Unit-Indication that will be extensible > Indication > Granted-Service- 431 8.17 Grouped - extensible > Unit > G-S-U-Pool- 457 8.30 Grouped - not extensible, does not > need to be > Reference > Multiple-Services 456 8.16 Grouped - extensible > -Credit-Control > Redirect-Server 434 8.37 Grouped - not extensible, has a > problem similar to equipment type as it contains an enumerated type/value > AVPs > Requested-Service 437 8.18 Grouped - extensible > -Unit > Service-Parameter 440 8.43 Grouped - not extensible, does not > need to be > -Info > Subscription-Id 443 8.46 Grouped - not extensible, has a > problem similar to equipment type as it contains an enumerated type/value > AVPs > Unit-Value 445 8.8 Grouped - not extensible, does not > need to be > Used-Service-Unit 446 8.19 Grouped - extensible > User-Equipment 458 8.49 Grouped - not extensible, will be > replaced by an AVP that will be extensible > -Info > > Would appreciate your comments if you think differently about any of the > AVPs above, or that we have missed other AVPs that needs to. > > (2) E.g adding new subscription ID. > > Unlike Subscription-Id-Type AVP which cannot be extended to a new type > without a new application ID, a new AVP being proposed in RFC4006bis is: > > Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX > > [ Subscription-Id-E164 ] > [ Subscription-Id-IMSI ] > [ Subscription-Id-SIP-URI ] > [ Subscription-Id-NAI ] > [ Subscription-Id-Private ] > *[ AVP ] > > So, in order to add a new type (post RFC4006bis), you would need to submit > draft with an AVP definition in it to could be added to the > Subscription-Id-Extension as it is extensible. > This new draft would be compliant with RFC4006bis and will therefore not > require a new application ID. > > Best Regards, > > Yuval > > > From: Misha Zaytsev [mailto:misha.zaytsev.rus@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:07 PM > To: Yuval Lifshitz > Cc: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > > Hi Yuval, > > May I ask you several questions to be able to understand the whole > situation: > > 1. Why are you proposing to add new extendable AVPs only for some of the > AVPs listed in section 12? > I think the same concern is applicable for all these AVPs, isn't? > > 2. Could you clarify what official procedure to assign new available > values is meant here? > It is not working w/o defining new Application-ID as you mentioned above? > > > 12.16. Subscription-Id-Type AVP > > As defined in Section 8.47, the Subscription-Id-Type AVP includes > Enumerated type values 0 - 4. IANA has created and is maintaining a > namespace for this AVP. All remaining values are available for > assignment by a Designated Expert [RFC2434]. > > Excuse me in advance if what I'm asking about are well-known things. > But still please clarify them at least for me... > > Thanks a lot in advance! > > /Misha > > 2017-01-25 11:29 GMT+03:00 Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>: > Hi Maryse, > The idea is the following: > • If the CC client want to work with RFC4006bis only CC server, > and want to make sure that the subscription ID is understood by the server, > it may set the M-bit. Any RFC4006 server will reply with > DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001) > • If the CC client is not sure whether the CC servers are RFC4006 > or RFC4006bis, or have a mix of servers, and want to work with both, it may > not set the M-bit > o In this case it would send both AVPs for the old types, so that the > new AVP will be ignored by the RFC4006 servers > o In a case of a new type of subscription, not covered in RFC4006, it > may send the new AVP with the M-bit set, causing any old server to reply > with DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001). It may also send the new AVP without > the M-bit set, here the server would just ignore the AVP, but would > probably reply DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP (5005) as it will not have any > subscription ID > > Yuval > > From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:25 PM > To: Yuval Lifshitz; dime@ietf.org > Subject: RE: RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > Hi Yuval, > > Thanks for continuing on this. > I am not sure to understand the difference between “may” and “must”, since > with “May” we can end having the M-bit set by the RFC4006bis CC client. > I guess from the protocol’s perspective “may” and “must” makes no > difference right? > > BR > Maryse > > From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yuval Lifshitz > Sent: vendredi 13 janvier 2017 15:24 > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [ALU] [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP > > Hi All, > As part of the RFC4006bis work there are several AVPs that we plan on > making future proof (See also: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dime/ticket/95). > For example, Subscription-Id AVP cannot be extended to new types without > changing the enumeration in Subscription-Id-Type AVP, which in turn > requires a new application ID (something we really want to avoid). > To solve this issue we propose adding a new, extendable AVP. In this > example: > > Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX > > [ Subscription-Id-E164 ] > [ Subscription-Id-IMSI ] > [ Subscription-Id-SIP-URI ] > [ Subscription-Id-NAI ] > [ Subscription-Id-Private ] > *[ AVP ] > > When looking into Subscription-ID-Extension AVP header flags I ran into a > problem. The existing Subscription-ID AVP (and its sub-AVPs) are all marked > with the M-bit as a “must”, probably because they hold the subscriber’s > name which is critical information. > However, in order for a RFC4006bis CC client to be able to communicate > with an RFC4006 CC-server, they will have to be marked as “may”. > > Would appreciate your point of view on that topic? > > Best Regards, > > Yuval > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > > >
- [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Misha Zaytsev
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR)
- Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension… Yuval Lifshitz