IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 22:23 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 F1C7E1AE195 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:23:34 -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 m_3hcTfG04Kv for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:23:34 -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 3FF791AE190 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:23:34 -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 rB3MNU5m040297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:23:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <529DFA17.1090507@usdonovans.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 16:23:30 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6F21918-2520-4B5B-89A6-D008FC352952@nostrum.com>
References: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D22C9C@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <529DFA17.1090507@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Multiple instance of OC-OLR AVP (of the same type) within a response message
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:23:35 -0000

On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> Nirav,
> 
> If we allow AVPs to be added without a new report type then where will the behavior associated with the presence of that AVP be documented?
> 
> Requiring the definition of a new registered report type insures that implementers have a well defined place to go to find out how to deal with the presence of that AVP.
> 

The big issue is that we don't have conflicting reports in an answer.

It seems like requiring a new report type for a new "kind" of report is simpler than allowing any random new AVP to discriminate among types. It also gives better backwards compatibility, since a node that doesn't understand some new AVP will not know that it indicates a different scope.

So I concur with Steve.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email