Re: [Dime] Proposed Example Text for draft-docdt-dime-ovli-01

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 15:22 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 1F9371AE06C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:22:54 -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 bTJImKKiGVTa for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:22:52 -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 143D81AC862 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rARFMkDV045314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:22:47 -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: <9AC5C876-99AD-4C43-9B13-3288C76459FB@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:22:46 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0DAFE4D5-2F15-487F-9616-738E94D7C925@nostrum.com>
References: <66DEB166-8DEB-42CA-A46E-8128F0D0900B@nostrum.com> <4CFE9D80-E25A-4B8F-96D1-EB7C21F2F11A@nostrum.com> <9AC5C876-99AD-4C43-9B13-3288C76459FB@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Proposed Example Text for draft-docdt-dime-ovli-01
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:22:54 -0000

On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> 3) Are we allowed to put more than one OLRs in a single answer, as my example shows in step 8?
>> 
>> It might be possible to construct an example where you never see more than one OLR in a single answer. But I don't see what purpose would be served by such a limitation, as long as multiple OLRs do not contradict each other. Since the reports in the example have different report types, there is no conflict. On disadvantage of _not_ allowing multiple reports in one answer is that, if the servers choose to send reports in every answer, life gets complicated for the agent when trying to find a place to put the "realm" report.  It either needs to strip the server reports (which is hard given that the server overload conditions are best handled by the clients.) Or it needs to originate its own answers, which means forcing the failure of at least some transactions.
> 
> My recollection was that we want to get rid off the ReportType in the baseline. That would also imply a single OLR in an answer. I might remember wrong, though.
> 
> Anyway, just to be on the safe side the current draft-ietf-*-01 still has the ReportType.
> 
> Could we conclude this point asap? Removing the ReportType has implications in multiple places.

I think we need to keep report type.