Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

On Dec 16, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> Hi Jouni
> 
> I am also fine for the statements you proposed.
> 
> My understanding for 4) about instances is the following 
> - when an OLR with host report type is present in a message; it is the only OLR instance with this report type
> - same for OLR with a realm report type
> - but you may have an OLR host report type and another OLR with realm report type in the same message.
> 
> Is my understanding correct?

Yes.

- Jouni

> 
> Best regards 
> 
> JJacques 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen
> Envoyé : mardi 10 décembre 2013 08:57
> À : Nirav Salot
> Cc : dime@ietf.org list
> Objet : Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
> 
> 
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) <nsalot@CISCO.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Jouni,
>> 
>> I am fine with the principles you have mentioned below for Report Type.
>> I also prefer to use enumerated type for this AVP if that does not risk the extendibility of this AVP.
>> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Good.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Nirav.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
>> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 5:30 PM
>> To: dime@ietf.org list
>> Subject: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> We need a conclusion here so that I can actually write something into the -01. How about the following (I try to reflect as many points given here as possible):
>> 
>> 1) The basic principle for the Report Type use is that only one
>>  OLR per report type is allowed unless the report type and the
>>  OLR reflecting the new report type define exact semantics how
>>  to differentiate between multiple OLRs with the same report
>>  type. In 3GPP context, for example, a report type with an AVP
>>  that identifies an APN could be such a differentiator.. and that
>>  would need a new report type where an implementation exactly
>>  knows to look for this additional AVP without guesswork or 
>>  fuzzy heuristics.
>> 
>> 2) A new report type or a set of new report types require a new
>>  feature to be allocated/defined so that both endpoints know how
>>  to handle the new report type that was defined after the
>>  publication of the baseline specification. The handling of the
>>  new report types must be defined (along with the new AVPs it
>>  might need to be included into the OC-OLR AVP).
>> 
>> 3) With 2) in place I do not care whether the OC-Report-Type is
>>  enumerated or unsigned (flag vector?). I still favour Enumerated
>>  myself as it forces the protocol designer to come up with a 
>>  cleaner design ;)
>> 
>> 4) For the baseline we only define host and realm report types.
>>  We do not allow multiple OLRs with these report types i.e.
>>  single instances of OLRs with host and/or realm are allowed.
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime