[Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1

["Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

here are comments to clause 4.1:

1. The OC-Feature-Vector AVP is no longer a vector; the name of the AVP may be misleading. Proposal is to rename it to "OC-Supported-Features AVP"

2. The OC-Feature AVP is a vector of features. Proposal is to rename it to "OC-Feature-Vector AVP"

3. The OC-Sequence-Number within OC-Feature-Vector only makes sense if the receiving reporting endpoint can determine the identity of the reacting endpoint (which is not necessarily the origin host (client), it may be an agent and it may not always be the same agent), and if the reporting endpoint is required to store the OC-Feature-Vector / reacting-endpoint-identity pair (which I think both is not required). The reporting endpoint can base its processing logic on the actually received OC-Feature-Vector value, no matter whether it is brand-new or old but stil valid. Proposal is to delete OC-Sequence-Number AVP from OC-Feature-Vector.
4. The text

   The reporting node that sends the answer also includes the OC-
   Feature-Vector AVP that describe the capabilities it supports.  The
   set of capabilities advertised by the reporting node depends on local
   policies.  At least one the announced capabilities MUST match
   mutually.  If there is no single matching capability the reacting
   node MUST act as if it does not implement DOIC and cease inserting
   any DOIC related AVPs into any Diameter messages with this specific
   reacting node.

is not clear.  Would the reporting node include the OC-Feature-Vector AVP in the answer only if there is at least one matching capability? 
Mandating the reacting node to cease for all time inserting OC-Feature-Vector AVPs if it did not get back at least one match is also not ok. The request might have been a realm-type request (i.e. without Destination Host) and the reacting node cannot control whether subsequent requests will take the same path to the same reporting node.
Even if the request contains a destination host the reacting node cannot know wether the reacting node's capabilities have been modified by the time a subsequent request is sent. 
Proposal is to keep only the first sentence and delete the rest.

Ulrich