Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

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?

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