Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2013 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 0632E1AE338 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 6xcXARbwy7K3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EC11A9313 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b8so2814096lan.27 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OnyjLByF10dRSM54xpmDpbSB19QS2bfjfGQMF5isZzU=; b=XWkxf7caUBIzPDA6WrpNjAPn+MGwLa/zMaE7B1dx2YnvPwvuzL+FrHXrHhKF20TFra MbhrHmXCkn6JblaUwPKeMBjXTjIHTNHM5gq5qlTO8VHtXxlzLtJlabOLTLiMe+5i/KxW qeNBLSx3i5c+bM1HJWtqknVOWAXGCjzmTP82ruxGzxbd+jgAYlc8O0+8Pi4HK1/bLbtb HlaM+Jwql+EMiQ34gEiVjigasBFhGPbeYeXav0x510Wb8uipcFgwLductCeyfeQ3bcvh cepLM2zCCBE3/YD2x0dtE4hBnJFYdvwtNEOOr7olUdeN3Kyd0dNE5nClDuIECCNT6qnk Xs4A==
X-Received: by 10.112.172.3 with SMTP id ay3mr31478lbc.95.1387210009464; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.37.103.37] ([77.95.242.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e10sm21573201laa.6.2013.12.16.08.06.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:06:49 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB5730@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:06:47 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7AEB29F3-422A-4642-AC47-64400E602834@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCBC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D959@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <2B4A6453-CBF0-48BE-B917-96B279229D3C@gmail.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB5730@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:06:53 -0000

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