Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06)
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 23 January 2015 15:15 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 331001A9115 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:15:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 mMbq4SreiWOt for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF2A01A909F for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t0NFFBK6010615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:15:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b4
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54C249E1.5050702@usdonovans.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:15:11 -0600
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 443718910.423717-0d29bcc125ba8d98ee3cd914ab11782d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <AAADB66E-EFDF-4084-8D58-C98A6CD107A6@nostrum.com>
References: <54B5399D.3020600@gmail.com> <AEE2E3C8-9ADF-4D0F-9793-B1F15A0EFDBA@nostrum.com> <54BEA19E.80309@usdonovans.com> <444F5015-38E2-4D19-A5F8-EBC32BAD38F6@nostrum.com> <54BEC3E7.40703@usdonovans.com> <54C10B60.7010405@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92098ADD13@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <56CE9F81-1BE9-489A-9C80-52D0DBAD2609@nostrum.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B92098ADF6A@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <54C249E1.5050702@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/FPlkkRg-aXWk5Y6edmgNGfmsiYg>
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06)
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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:15:21 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 What's the point of 2)? It still introduces a way that a DOIC extension might cause the application transaction to fail. Do we want that? On Jan 23, 2015, at 7:17 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote: I would propose the following resolution to the M-bit issue: 1) We say that new extensions MUST NOT require the M-bit be set for new sub-AVPs of the OC-Supported-Features AVP or the OC-OLR AVP. 2) We indicate that if there a new extension includes behavior that requires 6733 defined M-bit behavior then the new extension can define a new AVP. It just can't make that new AVP part of OC-Supported-Features or OC-OLR. Does this address everyone's concerns? Steve On 1/23/15 3:46 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote: See below Thanks - -----Original Message----- From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] Sent: jueves, 22 de enero de 2015 22:34 To: Maria Cruz Bartolome Cc: Steve Donovan; dime@ietf.org Subject: DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Jan 22, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> wrote: A) About 'M' bit: My understanding of RFC6733: The 'M' bit, known as the Mandatory bit, indicates whether the receiver of the AVP MUST parse and understand the semantics of the AVP including its content. The receiving entity MUST return an appropriate error message if it receives an AVP that has the M-bit set but does not understand it. An exception applies when the AVP is embedded within a Grouped AVP. See Section 4.4 for details. 4.4: Receivers of a Grouped AVP that does not have the 'M' (mandatory) bit set and one or more of the encapsulated AVPs within the group has the 'M' (mandatory) bit set MAY simply be ignored if the Grouped AVP itself is unrecognized. The rule applies even if the encapsulated AVP with its 'M' (mandatory) bit set is further encapsulated within other sub-groups, i.e., other Grouped AVPs embedded within the Grouped AVP. If the Grouped AVP does not have the 'M' bit set, but one (or more) of its sub-AVPs do have it, then the grouped AVP may be ignored (instead of sending an error) if the Grouped AVP itself is "unrecognized" But what "unrecognized" mean in this context? In my opinion, the grouped AVP is not recognized as long as mandatory sub-AVPs are missed, this includes conditionally mandatory (up to negotiation) sub AVPs. Then I would proposed a variant to your proposal 2 below: That's not what "unrecognized" typically means in IETF specs. The common usage is to mean that the recipient doesn't recognize it, or doesn't know what it means. This is distinct from "malformed" meaning it wasn't constructed correctly. Missing mandatory sub-AVPs would fall into the "malformed" category, not the "unrecognized" category. . By definition, a DOIC cannot claim OC-Supported-Features or OC-OLR as unrecognized. 3) sub-AVPs of DOIC grouped AVPs MUST NOT have the m-bit set unless the sub-avp is mandatory or conditionally mandatory (i.e. part of an extension explicitly negotiated in the feature vector). Also, the M-bit doesn't mean the avp is mandatory to be present, just mandatory to be understood. By definition, you can't set the M-bit on an AVP that is not actually there. (Other things may make it mandatory to be present, such as the feature or application definition, but that still doesn't necessarily mean it's mandatory to understand.) It's also possible that some new feature will involve an AVP that is not there all the time, but mandatory to understand when it is there.. [MCruz] Any mandatory or conditionally mandatory AVP, it is as well mandatory to be understood by any DOIC-enabled. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUwWy4AAoJEIBWSmyV89QNV70P/ji24iU2Wr93uGIjK79hSNIR Bnab4rva2MHeGufWvTzYsvXwCYUaWOeb7y4Z5T1dRgPOPw4JNKQ5cnoEMjIMmWJu J4ocoZlAR7ujKBOlTnvf1FlFEPDQ6emanxcRZD9+nTQPaC54gnMgf6CfWyQBgIia oVGMEg2C/+yzx4NtuGAwqpJ4dVe/33VMpl4lG7KG4JQMzLYxyWIiiLDvA8SQXoxU rLLVvkvKWp2hKdjO7zxpTY6Vd2DqYawU/Z25yWBAUmDFWziJwh6HD2P38F/KNszZ kpRJD3WrjGdlmPKatooNwCHz60hjP2lFXlS7vocNAWuug4dAyPNZarl3G+ZSAhtB Wud/vThdWwknGM9TbumDW5FM8kJoUPSjTICtaSG3jsnW2qPKAcikSubmepc5KXDg Dap50sTL9XfM1WNIqiM1H/DdsQnEJfqgPJ7Nce+mzllMAFHVL7hOIyf2zpb8vPtt Nq5FuCbDr4qK7IZxX+OzFuUJC+aT3ajWt6lZLjZmcHnObOfgTCDggWspWXzlNY+X oYgH3DT6/j4jNkOZGcw7cOw1xHIQQWwxLEJkLIQwJiKeZHcOYbZ69LuEZ8k7mXZ3 cCDvnggXLujLZE5F4D/LtLq5MMrwGWtLiNN1DOBX3iH5EKE/YK0nsbFD+DKR9AiF LdvuO+g1/k8sGzWJgxkr =+wlK - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUwmV/AAoJEIBWSmyV89QNk/gQAMTubMzk/y3Ia3thiWAH8K/2 j9VnwHFsza62G3uMLmYQ8tZNsXgidOF+F6WwC6hZRZK/QX3tNTLbnF4FjyFn2fhO eE0D00mDbp/kngMITrxVHTGghocSBxGHyNntQKwrIxV7gVYIxEbMUL8ouKvO9Do8 NOi9K/he1iiK0pCNcQ9UstU8ZQm5kPyqMVGLhsHLEe779qTfE6fF5ppeJgATPyJl 1wNHgBoh9XcGPJdYO4MzcSn/hO9+tC9Ngp2lO0w4Q2SHgwh1W3kRODwLtNWq8pcg JcSb6UtcQ/jVdOCF23/eZ3OhXgC8q01j2tp0YGVXGqPf4ePPU10uAW/8lioEwbRH iiqOiSSEPbjjMb3yVDc/cu78Iq8NGr8n7iEiQwlPCs8Vlv7Nj7xv2Lmyk8LlDz4q /HAozquUXgHwaYuKtzH7QBf+79rinPJAjomv10tzMSHk/Tu5aq0KFI41jqUra1i/ 0xu9TnMDmEseL5rjMpkQ1Cw69H/etoh7+93jt3nGJUoLL7+eGoq0Z8pkl3Ukeihu 1DjigPWkbsfGtp0Iw0FKvtVMjSqFgFyH2y/k3u2Xiiz5k/e6mdqp3UnsHuc6MPUy 4fULg+SShkAMnk5BFjG4KKFWdTBhVn5X8O8lhgzfJ46SYkdAo2qw9YEd19CtJK5E yvE5D9UmNsXqEjh+t/yp =mnr3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Maria Cruz Bartolome
- [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for draf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] WLGC #2 for draft-ietf-dime-ovli-06 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Steve Donovan
- [Dime] Coming out of 100% reduction (was Re: WLGC… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] DOIC M-Bit usage (was Re: WLGC #2 for … Ben Campbell