Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 07:29 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 D75621ADEA1 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:29:10 -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 l5qne_HuwAyB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22f.google.com (mail-bk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030821ADDAF for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 23:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so1769624bkb.6 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:29:03 -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=ZPxPylcjxqKD2P101/pdaSBP/S7PUdk3P8myLNoXN1A=; b=Ap+3tdgyPfIh8RT8lKfxeYkk2MIQaTtFBTGTgyRO/izsJUoQeR+sdU4RHwVsI7cK3v fP9mdR5Ml4RzuRF9JbTFm+A5rOwVMcdzpJZeMIfK79iMUI2t7DDwKqggTvwqFhbrvxR9 N3YyR+tQa415kJ5JoUtV97VoW9Cczp8UVKLoEXKv/Iu/uiAjZL5N6qcrgr7G/Xx1qTg5 FykUi4QJH79OLkAKeYcW1vSFgIqYwQVm4xi7C042fVOcCxEkUspMCwZZcmyLLDqsU+OT hzrI4NgGrXeu2HNZceIQOuplwgYZxKge+HCShUmE6XyXUUzYRXXPdn1I4yv6oHsY46Hu KwiA==
X-Received: by 10.205.42.74 with SMTP id tx10mr84762bkb.113.1386660543359; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:6e8:480:60:20b9:7452:797c:e240? ([2001:6e8:480:60:20b9:7452:797c:e240]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id sx5sm10722201bkb.0.2013.12.09.23.28.59 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F256E4B0-E34D-4EDB-8428-A7D7DFC650A8@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:28:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BFA15CDA-18C5-4044-BBD9-FD829F50C18B@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCBC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com> <F256E4B0-E34D-4EDB-8428-A7D7DFC650A8@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:29:11 -0000

Good point.

- JOuni

On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:18 AM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> It's probably also worth adding some guidance on when it makes sense to define a new report type. For example, if I want to add a new AVP that can be safely ignored by a recipient that doesn't understand it, I probably don't need a new report type.
> 
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>