Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

I'm ok with either direction but generally lean toward being explicit.

Do we have other opinions? 

Steve
On 3/18/14 12:16 PM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think the agreement tendency is the contrary: OC-Report-Type is not
> required, while default value is Host. i.e. it will remain as it is
> now in the draft.
>
> This may be of some advantage for some applications that may only use
> Host, as long as they may never generate Realm reports.
>
> If there is consensus on this, I will go with this.
>
> Best regards
>
> /MCruz
>
>  
>
> *From:*DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Donovan
> *Sent:* martes, 18 de marzo de 2014 17:47
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
>
>  
>
> All,
>
> Do we have consensus that the OC-Report-Type AVP is required?
>
> If so then one change would be as indicated in the syntax definition
> proposed by Lionel.  We would also remove wording on the default value.
>
> Jouni,
>
> How do we indicate a fixed position for an AVP? 
>
> I presonally don't see this as critical but we can add this
> requirement if there is consensus.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> On 2/28/14 10:27 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>
>      
>
>     Hi,
>
>      
>
>     How having the AVP could be less error prone if it has a default
>
>     value and the receiver knows exactly how to proceed when the AVP
>
>     is not present?
>
>      
>
>     If a node does not include it when it should, the implementation
>
>     is broken. Wouldn't a broken node be able to put wrong report
>
>     type into the AVP even if the AVP is mandatory?
>
>      
>
>     Anyway, if it is my statement keeping issue #54 still open, consider
>
>     it resolved from my side. I am OK making the OC-Report-Type AVP as
>
>     required/mandatory AVP. Should we also consider it having a fixed
>
>     position just after the OC-Sequence-Number AVP as well since it is
>
>     going to in every OC-OLR?
>
>      
>
>     - Jouni
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     On Feb 21, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>      
>
>          
>
>         Hello all,
>
>          
>
>         I understand JJ point of view, but I still tend to prefer to make it mandatory, since I think this is less error-prone, since the only node that knows the requested Report-Type is the reporting, if for any reason a reporting is omitting it (since it is optional), it will be always interpreted as HOST, but this type may be wrong.
>
>          
>
>         I think DEFAULT values should never be error-prone, but used in "general cases", as a simplification, like e.g. a default for the Validity-Duration. Default Validity-Duration will never be an "error", it could be not the best value (compared with another value perfectly tuned to reporting node overload situation) but never the use of a Default value should lead to an erroneous behavior.
>
>          
>
>         Best regards
>
>         /MCruz
>
>          
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>
>         From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
>
>         Sent: viernes, 14 de febrero de 2014 23:13
>
>         To: Jouni Korhonen
>
>         Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
>
>          
>
>         I actually prefer making it mandatory. The cost of adding it is trivial--even more so for a reporting node that only supports the default. The value of having it is less opportunity for interop errors.
>
>          
>
>         On Feb 13, 2014, at 6:05 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>          
>
>              
>
>             Agree that it is a small optimization, which I put there because at 
>
>             the beginning there seemed to be a lot of worry on every extra AVP ;-)
>
>              
>
>             I prefer having the AVP optional but with a default value just like it 
>
>             is now. We have the same for the reduction percentage and the validity 
>
>             time as well.
>
>              
>
>             - Jouni
>
>              
>
>             On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:55 AM, "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>              
>
>                 Hi Mcruz
>
>                  
>
>                 The current description indicates that when not present the OLR is of type Host, which was fine for me and keeps my preference. 
>
>                 We may have  deployments where Realm OLR is not used, or where statistically the HOST type is the most frequent, so to have the grouped OLR-AVP containing a minimum of AVPs minimizes parsing. I agree it is a small optimization.
>
>                  
>
>                 Best regards
>
>                  
>
>                 JJacques
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                  
>
>                 -----Message d'origine-----
>
>                 De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de 
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Envoyé : mercredi 12 février 2014 15:46 À : 
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Objet : Re: [Dime] 
>
>                 [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
>
>                  
>
>                 Hi Maria Cruz,
>
>                  
>
>                 I'm assuming that you mean "required" instead of "mandatory", right?
>
>                  
>
>                 So instead of:
>
>                  
>
>                 OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
>
>                            < OC-Sequence-Number >
>
>                            [ OC-Report-Type ]
>
>                            [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
>
>                            [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
>
>                          * [ AVP ]
>
>                  
>
>                 You would prefer:
>
>                  
>
>                 OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >
>
>                            < OC-Sequence-Number >
>
>                            { OC-Report-Type }
>
>                            [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]
>
>                            [ OC-Validity-Duration ]
>
>                          * [ AVP ]
>
>                  
>
>                 And I'm fine with this proposal.
>
>                  
>
>                 Cheers,
>
>                  
>
>                 Lionel
>
>                  
>
>                 -----Message d'origine-----
>
>                 De : DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de dime issue 
>
>                 tracker Envoyé : mercredi 12 février 2014 15:26 À : 
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Cc : [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> Objet : [Dime] 
>
>                 [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
>
>                  
>
>                 #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
>
>                  
>
>                 Now in chapter 4.6:
>
>                  
>
>                  The default value of the OC-Report-Type AVP is 0 (i.e. the host
>
>                  report).
>
>                  
>
>                 This AVP is always required, right? Then, I think it is more precise that  we define this AVP as mandatory.
>
>                  
>
>                 --
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---------------------
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---
>
>                 Reporter:  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  |      Owner:  MCruz
>
>                   Type:  defect                             |  Bartolomé
>
>                 Priority:  major                              |     Status:  new
>
>                 Component:  draft-docdt-dime-ovli              |  Milestone:
>
>                 Severity:  Active WG Document                 |    Version:  1.0
>
>                                                             |   Keywords:
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---------------------
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---
>
>                 -----------------------------------------------+---
>
>                  
>
>                 Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/54> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/54>
>
>                 dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
>
>                  
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 DiME mailing list
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>                  
>
>                 _____________________________________________________________________
>
>                 ____________________________________________________
>
>                  
>
>                 Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>                  
>
>                 This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>
>                 If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>
>                 As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>
>                 Thank you.
>
>                  
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 DiME mailing list
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 DiME mailing list
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>              
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             DiME mailing list
>
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>          
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         DiME mailing list
>
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>          
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         DiME mailing list
>
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     DiME mailing list
>
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>      
>
>  
>