Re: [Dime] Conclusion for the Report Type

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