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

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.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 300F41A0601 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 Rj_oJ85sApEY for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865E61A05E5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 56A153B4214; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:32:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.183]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E51BF4C06C; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:32:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:32:27 +0100
From: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
To: "Shishufeng (Susan)" <susan.shishufeng@huawei.com>, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
Thread-Index: AQHPRcQNKav1Yd2xqUyLNClmxsrsL5rvnpVggAAIHgCAAbwsIP//2cWAgAGGpGD//6iMAIAAiQOg//99GVAAAQlQAAARdy8Q///D9QD//3OVcIAApYqA//5hYeD//Jsx8ADZeeeA///qNtA=
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:32:27 +0000
Message-ID: <11312_1395916348_5333FE3C_11312_7917_5_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E520C95@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <075.72da31b401c033905a4fb81d09a8b4aa@trac.tools.ietf.org> <53287893.5020203@usdonovans.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920979DDA2@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <53288284.5040606@usdonovans.com> <A7A9CDB7-9D90-458B-8C24-F0BFF52F897C@gmail.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3D80D@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <53302446.9080700@usdonovans.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3DE93@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <533178CD.9030707@usdonovans.com>, <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3E4C3@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <11673_1395816227_53327723_11673_1919_1_4wjyrmeak04xst2onmes7ybh.1395816218573@email.android.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3E57B@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3E5AD@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <1369_1395819319_53328337_1369_10404_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E51C25A@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3E671@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <5332C60E.2060805@usdonovans.com> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3E932@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <14209_1395841826_5332DB22_14209_9620_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E51E2FD@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3ED23@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com> <22839_1395912677_5333EFE4_22839_3586_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E520AC9@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3EEEF@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <26C84DFD55BC3040A45BF70926E55F2587C3EEEF@SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E520C95PEXCVZYM13corpora_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.3.27.24215
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/RIDu0k3Xltt63pScXnF7g3qG41w
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP
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: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:32:44 -0000

Hi Susan,

Please see below.

Lionel

De : Shishufeng (Susan) [mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 27 mars 2014 11:04
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc : dime@ietf.org; Benoit Claise
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hello Lionel,


-          I'm not talking the specific optional AVPs defined in this draft, but others e.g. defined in 3GPP specifications. We have a lot optional AVPs with default values.
[LM] in 3GPP there are introduced in existing applications and usually in commands. There is no other options to include them are purely optional.


-           my understanding, some cases an AVP is needed, some cases it is not needed, that's the key point to justify its optionality.
[LM] I agree that we don't have the same understanding here.


-          Apart from the benefit of less AVPs and less error cases with this AVP as optional, another key point is that the server(host) will never care about the AVP at all. It will never need to remember to put such an AVP into the message. Only agent needs to add such an AVP in case putting into realm report, this would make things much simpler from my point of view.
[LM] that is wrong to say "never". A server can have realm-based information that can be provided to reacting nodes. It is only depending of the server implementation and environment. For instance, if a realm is entirely dedicated to a type of server, a farm based implementation would provide such functionality, as discussed.

Further, the discussion on Realm is still ongoing and whether it can work well is still under investigation.
[LM] I think that the ongoing discussion is too tight to specific use cases, important ones for 3GPP I admit. However the whole goal of this work is to have something that it will work in any case. If there are some requirements for realm-based info, I don't see a specific reason to restrict the use of report type. And don't forget that new report types can be created in the future. So it is not restricted to Host vs realm.

The benefit to have it as optional is clear, and this would not bring any harm. I hope this can be reconsidered.
[LM] let see if there are other voice that could not accept the proposed approach.

Best Regards,
Susan

From: lionel.morand@orange.com [mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 5:31 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org; Benoit Claise
Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hi Susan,

In this specific case, the info carried by the AVP is not optional. You need this info in the algorithm as it will modify the behavior of the reacting node.
The current solution is to define a default value when not received.

I believe that at the protocol level, having this AVP in every request is cleaner than relying on default value when not present. The initial goal for such default value was to limit the number of AVPs transmitted over the interfaces. And I think that it is not so relevant according to the output of the other discussions and such optimization is not deemed required anymore.

Moreover, the default value today would be likely "Host" but this is only based on current working assumptions for some 3GPP interfaces. When used in some networks, Realm is perfectly valid as default value if the system is designed for that. I think that AT&T and Verizon have clearly expressed their requirements for that.

This reasoning leads to change the existing for Grouped AVP from:



OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >

           < OC-Sequence-Number >

           [ OC-Report-Type ]

           [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]

           [ OC-Validity-Duration ]

         * [ AVP ]
To:


OC-OLR ::= < AVP Header: TBD2 >

           < OC-Sequence-Number >

           { OC-Report-Type }

           [ OC-Reduction-Percentage ]

           [ OC-Validity-Duration ]

         * [ AVP ]

I would like to clarify that this discussion is totally independent of the M-bit setting of the AVP.

And about why not put the other AVPs as required in the Grouped AVP, it is because it is abvious that the other ones are linked to the reduction algo defined in this document. For other algos, you could find other AVPs (relying on the extensibility of this Grouped AVP) instead.

Let me know if the clarification is useful.


Regards,

Lionel

De : Shishufeng (Susan) [mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 27 mars 2014 07:38
À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hi Lionel,

If you cares, please clarify how this decision was made based on the newly ongoing technical discussion. I really don't understand a useless AVP in most cases has to be mandatory.

May I ask why not define every optional AVP as mandatory if the only point you made decision was that it will not block anything?

Best Regards,
Susan

From: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> [mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:50 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise
Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hi,

Because it was not possible to make everyone happy, I made a decision. I think that this decision is valid and will not block anything.
To be fair, I think that the majority could accept both while few have a strong preference for optional or mandatory.  And I picked one.
Can we please discuss about something else or is it the most critical point to solve? I think that everyone is waiting for a version 02 before the end of this week.

Regards,

Lionel


De : Shishufeng (Susan) [mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2014 13:53
À : Steve Donovan; MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Jouni Korhonen
Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hello Steve,

Ok, let's come back with technical discussion then.


-          First a not always needed AVP cannot justify why it shall be mandatory.

-          Secondly, in my view, having a not always needed AVP as mandatory cannot be less error prone. On the contrary, it would introduce more error cases. RFC 6733 defines a couple of error codes e.g. DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP 5005, DIAMETER_INVALID_AVP_VALUE 5004 and maybe others to deal with the possible error cases. All the handling with this AVP consumes the resource of both reporting nodes and reacting nodes. I don't see any benefit to have it.


Best Regards,
Susan


From: Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:21 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>; Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

I disagree that the majority of individuals (companies don't apply here) have a preference.  We have not established the view of a majority.

If we took a vote of individuals on this, I would vote for making it explicit.

I also support Lionel being able to make a decision.  We all need to be flexible enough to accept that decision, especially when there is no technical reason to disagree with the decision.

Steve
On 3/26/14 3:03 AM, Shishufeng (Susan) wrote:
Hello Lionel,

Thanks for your reply.

It is clear that majority companies involved in the discussion prefer to not have this AVP as mandatory. And Steve is ok with it as it is, and thus everyone is ok with it as optional. I'm wondering why you choose another way forward, and don't take opinion from majority companies into account, which is strange for me.

We talked much about it, and in some major cases, this AVP is useless. If needed, anyway an optional AVP has to be present, I don't see any problem with it. We did a lot like this in 3GPP spec. I don't understand how in this case it shall be mandatory if you also agree that it is not needed in some cases.

Best Regards,
Susan


From: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> [mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:35 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; Benoit Claise
Subject: RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hi Susan,

I do care about comments from other but we need to move on.

My decision is based on the following: from a technical point of view, there is no issue if we define this AVP as required. From a protocol aspect, it is cleaner as a report ALWAYS applies to a given type. Default value was considered as sub-optimal by Jouni, Ben, Steve, Maria Cruz (who has triggered this issue) and myself.

Now, about the process, a 100% is not required to move forward. As it is not possible to get consensus on this issue, I use my prerogative to pick one solution, the one that seems to be the best solution at this stage, to be able to close the discussion at this stage and produce the draft that we need.

After, it is always possible to challenge again the content of the draft if there is still concern.

Benoit, the Area Director, is copied. It is not a putsch. Just administrative way agreed within IETF to be able to move forward a WG draft, which is the ultimate goal of everyone I think.

Regards,

Lionel.

De : Shishufeng (Susan) [mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2014 08:06
À : Shishufeng (Susan); MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Objet : RE: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hello Lionel,

Further clarification:

I don't agree with this, not ok to everyone as you said.

Best Regards,
Susan

From: Shishufeng (Susan) [mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:56 PM
To: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com>; Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Hello Lionel,

I don't understand it.

Please clarify if you care about other people's comments.

Best Regards,
Susan

From: lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> [mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:44 PM
To: Steve Donovan; Jouni Korhonen; Shishufeng (Susan)
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP


As chair and temporary doc shepherd,



Please stop this thread for now.



As mandatory/required is ok for everyone (even if useless in certain case), let use it for now.



Lionel





"Shishufeng (Susan)" <susan.shishufeng@huawei.com<mailto:susan.shishufeng@huawei.com>> a écrit :


Hello Steve,

Thanks for clarifying the IETF procedure. I'm not familiar with it, while I know the draft is mainly for 3GPP use, that's why we 3GPP delegates are deeply involved in this specific discussion. If most of 3GPP people think it is not so needed I couldn't understand why it shall be mandatory.

>From technical point of view, in the case realm based report type is not needed, nothing wrong without this AVP, and even better and cleaner.

And you ever said you have preference but ok with either way forward, i.e., make it mandatory or optional. Then let's move on with the draft as it is on this point, if you agree.

Best Regards,
Susan

From: Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:39 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Susan,

We have not been following a process of determining consensus based on a majority of companies expressing a preference.  It is also the case that, in the IETF, companies do not contribute, individuals contribute.

In addition, if we did take a "vote" on this one, I'm not sure which side would actually have a majority.

We might need to change our process to speed things up, but right now we have been striving for true consensus where everyone agrees.  Note that this doesn't mean everyone agrees with the technical reasoning behind the decision.  There have been many cases where agreement is reached because it was more important to get something finished then to win a technical argument.

If we can't start moving a little faster then we will likely need to change to rough consensus, where the measure is that most everyone agrees.  However, in the IETF, even this is not a voting process.  If things are close to 50-50 in opinions then the correct process is to continue to discuss the technical merits of each alternative until rough consensus is reached.

Regards,

Steve
On 3/25/14, 2:00 AM, Shishufeng (Susan) wrote:
Hi Steve,

As I know, majority companies expressed preference to keep the AVP as optional and keep the texts as they are. You have preference to have it explicitly but ok with either way. That's how I assumed we reached consensus.

Best Regards,
Susan

From: Steve Donovan [mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 8:26 PM
To: Shishufeng (Susan); Jouni Korhonen
Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Susan,

We are in the middle of the discussion and have not yet reached consensus.

I agree with Jouni on making it explicit.  Either way, we should try to make a decision quickly.

Steve
On 3/23/14 10:59 PM, Shishufeng (Susan) wrote:

Hello Jouni,



I assume we had a lot of discussion on this and reached consensus to keep it as it is in the draft.



Best Regards,

Susan





-----Original Message-----

From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:38 AM

To: Steve Donovan

Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>

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





Lets have it explicit then. Use '<' and '>' to make the position fixed.



- Jouni



On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com><mailto:srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:



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:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Donovan

Sent: martes, 18 de marzo de 2014 17:47

To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>

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 <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com><mailto:maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> 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:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell

Sent: viernes, 14 de febrero de 2014 23:13

To: Jouni Korhonen

Cc: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>

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 <jouni.nospam@gmail.com><mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com> 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)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com><mailto:jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com> 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:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de

lionel.morand@orange.com<mailto:lionel.morand@orange.com> Envoyé : mercredi 12 février 2014 15:46 À :

dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>; maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com<mailto:maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> 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:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de dime issue

tracker Envoyé : mercredi 12 février 2014 15:26 À :

maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com<mailto:maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Cc : dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org> 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:  maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com<mailto:maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>  |      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

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

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

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime



_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime







_______________________________________________

DiME mailing list

DiME@ietf.org<mailto:DiME@ietf.org>

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.