Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1

"Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.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 5CA391ADF32 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:13:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 YusJj5-129Hg for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A65A1ADF66 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 05:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id rB9DD7vb020111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:13:07 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC003.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.34]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id rB9DD7Sq009611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:13:07 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC007.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.38) by DEMUHTC003.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:13:06 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.14.152]) by DEMUHTC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:13:07 +0100
From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
To: ext Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
Thread-Index: Ac7xvTHHIECkLcDwSDuVAh2ACeOasAAprlMAAAaV6CAAlFJBAAADLijg///yiAD//+yxwA==
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:13:06 +0000
Message-ID: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519E05C@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DA3E@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <6CDCFC84-3048-40B9-91A4-1451FCC65F60@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DCE5@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <09616DA2-D1ED-40EE-8E89-755DFCD81092@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519E02B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <1A402C59-E390-4C95-8E30-97F1F9D3EF0F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A402C59-E390-4C95-8E30-97F1F9D3EF0F@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.112]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 5845
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1386594787-000030AF-A9A372AE/0-0/0-0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
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, 09 Dec 2013 13:13:16 -0000

There is a fundamental difference:
OLRs need to be stored, Feature-Vectors not.
When receiving an OLR you may want to know whether its worth the effort to replace an already stored OLR with the received OLR.
When receiving a Feature-Vector you just act on it.

Ulrich 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:55 PM
To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1


In the same vein as folks wanted send OLRs with the new or old information,
the feature vector should behave in a same way IMHO. That implies there are
situations when a reception of the feature vector does not change anything
in an endpoint current behavior.

- Jouni

On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:47 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

> Isn't it so that the Feature-Vector (if present) always contains something that an implementation needs to act upon?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
> 
> Ulrich,
> 
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 3:03 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jouni,
>> 
>> thank you for your response.
>> 
>> With regard to 3) 
>> I still fail to see the usecase for Sequence-Number or TimeStamp within OC-Feature-Vector. Please clarify.
> 
> Since we also allow extending the OC-Feature-Vector beyond recognition, 
> it has good chances become a rather complex grouped AVP. In that context
> the Sequence-Number allows an easy and quick way to check if the feature
> vector contains something that an implementation needs to act upon.
> 
>> With regard to 4)
>> This was not obvious to me. (The obvious typo is the missing "of" between "one" and "the").
> 
> Ack. Fixed the missing 'of'.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Ulrich
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:17 AM
>> To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
>> Cc: dime@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.1
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:23 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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"
>> 
>> OK with me.
>> 
>>> 2. The OC-Feature AVP is a vector of features. Proposal is to rename it to "OC-Feature-Vector AVP"
>> 
>> OK with me.
>> 
>>> 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),
>> 
>> My original proposal was to have seqnr as a timestamp. Some folks argued
>> it is no good and suggested seqnr. I still think time makes more sense than
>> seqnr.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Do not agree removing it.
>> 
>>> 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? 
>> 
>> Because then they have found a way to exchange something that both ends
>> know how to handle it.
>> 
>>> Mandating the reacting node to cease for all time inserting OC-Feature-Vector AVPs if it did not get back 
>> 
>> There is an obvious typo. It should say:
>> 
>>  policies.  At least one the announced capabilities MUST match
>>  mutually.  If there is no single matching capability the reporting
>>  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.
>> 
>> - JOuni
>> 
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> DiME mailing list
>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>> 
>