Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 16 December 2013 20:08 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 8C2451A1F4C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:26 -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 SNbUwmfPCcv1 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com (mail-la0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72151AC829 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f49.google.com with SMTP id er20so2880993lab.36 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:22 -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=gV5mvwC9jtWqM+kQTZ7w99rMlAAcFvG/rrdNyZLG9mw=; b=hqagyrHh+8pxlT0a2+XuIjiX++SqlmNNBX6sU6jjdQYUWknJEVUydxMeqtbet6SUWr KR83TsN+1u6O47z8ISwssfoJp5xm5xuJ2Q+65H+ZxjM1Kw/z2n+bOtSdTU3NWu7NE1Uo FNweX+GzLdBkncRJbAzD3LujQ8i27eoZCpDHDtxYYGw5BKAcZm3lKsp/DfuZyHBCIPow +4YJ7kOJ+EM/+qbg4XZ1GUh4OoMAA5afNgiKr/sPgcFZXwQdUXYwMGAlqX7twOcEbTFJ o6ne6F+B4B4tESPca+Tu9pxuKDBJS1BkhzrEana55Hn7fF323ZTWb9QPDyuaCNlFYz51 9nQQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.11.170 with SMTP id r10mr4532744lbb.23.1387224502447; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.108] ([188.117.15.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm10690857lbm.13.2013.12.16.12.08.21 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:08:21 -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: <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB57C1@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:08:18 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7EFF91A0-7EF4-4AED-8219-11833BC7231D@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCBC@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <453156F8-9090-46D4-BF8E-A877F40EE3AC@gmail.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920975653A@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB57C1@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 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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:08:26 -0000

Hi,

My take is that a flag field would have exactly the same issues as enumerated if it used in a similar manner as enumerated. 

If new enumerated values are only used and _included_ into OC-Report-Type when both ends are known to support it, there is no issue. And that is, for example, exactly one reason we have the OC-Feature-Vector for. All we need to do is to make sure that (a set of) new report types in future specifications also imply a definition of a new feature vector flag. 

- Jouni

On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:52 PM, "TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)" <jean-jacques.trottin@alcatel-lucent.com>; wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> About Enumerated versus unsigned (flag vector), Lionel is in favour of using unsigned (flag vector) due to the issue  for adding a new emulated value in the future to the existing one, creating backward compatibility. In  3GPP CT4 it is the unsigned (flag vector rule we apply for new AVPs, so I would prefer to be consistent by using the same rule. It would be good to have Lionel's view on this.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> JJacques 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Maria Cruz Bartolome
> Envoyé : lundi 16 décembre 2013 18:04
> À : Jouni Korhonen; dime@ietf.org list
> Objet : Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I agree on the principles.
> Enumerated is fine for me as well.
> 
> Best regards
> /MCruz
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
> Sent: lunes, 09 de diciembre de 2013 13:00
> 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