Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP

[Misha Zaytsev <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yuval,

Thanks a lot for your clarifications! Now it seems I see your concern.

As I can see the problem is that there is no possibility to extend the
defined AVPs of type Enumerated in a backward compatible way. For me it
means that all enumerate AVPs defined in RFC4006 (listed in section 12) is
a matter of your investigation. Not the grouped ones, but the ones that are
used as indicators in these grouped AVPs.

Following the recommendations in https://tools.ietf.org/html/
rfc7423#section-5.6 that you pointed out, I think bitmask based AVPs may be
a way out in the current situation. Such AVP will be marked as mandatory.
While only one bit of this bitmask MUST be set.

 Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
                             [ Subscription-Id-Type-Indicator ]
                             [Subscrition-Id-Data]

Have you considered this option? Or probably I'm missing something..

However, if we follow the way you are proposing with several mutually
exclusive AVPs, then these AVPs should be marked as not mandatory. While in
the description of the appropriate grouped AVP it should be stated that
only one of these AVPs MUST be present.

/Misha


2017-01-29 11:29 GMT+03:00 Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]>:

> Hi Misha,
> There is nothing “well known” in these issues and I’ll be happy to clarify!
>
> (1) During IETF96 a question came regarding the support of the IMEI user
> equipment type – currently not one of the enumerated types of the
> User-Equipment-Info-Type AVP (IMEISV is there but not IMEI). As a result of
> this discussion, and due to the enum extension limitations (see here:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7423#section-5.6), we were asked to do an
> analysis on which enumerated AVPs requires extensibility. The results were
> captured in the following ticket: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/
> dime/ticket/95
> For better clarity I’m posting here the actual analysis of AVPs. Some of
> them didn’t need to be extensible (in our view), some of them were already
> extensible and the rest were added to the ticket:
>
>                      AVP  Section
>    Attribute Name    Code Defined Data Type
>    -----------------------------------------
>    CC-Money          413  8.22   Grouped    - not extensible, does not
> need to be
>    Cost-Information  423  8.7    Grouped    - not extensible, does not
> need to be
>    Final-Unit-       430  8.34   Grouped    - not extensible, will be
> replaced by QoS-Final-Unit-Indication that will be extensible
>      Indication
>    Granted-Service-  431  8.17   Grouped    - extensible
>      Unit
>    G-S-U-Pool-       457  8.30   Grouped    - not extensible, does not
> need to be
>      Reference
>    Multiple-Services 456  8.16   Grouped    - extensible
>     -Credit-Control
>    Redirect-Server   434  8.37   Grouped    - not extensible, has a
> problem similar to equipment type as it contains an enumerated type/value
> AVPs
>    Requested-Service 437  8.18   Grouped    - extensible
>      -Unit
>    Service-Parameter 440  8.43   Grouped    - not extensible, does not
> need to be
>      -Info
>    Subscription-Id   443  8.46   Grouped    - not extensible, has a
> problem similar to equipment type as it contains an enumerated type/value
> AVPs
>    Unit-Value        445  8.8    Grouped    - not extensible, does not
> need to be
>    Used-Service-Unit 446  8.19   Grouped    - extensible
>    User-Equipment    458  8.49   Grouped    - not extensible, will be
> replaced by an AVP that will be extensible
>      -Info
>
> Would appreciate your comments if you think differently about any of the
> AVPs above, or that we have missed other AVPs that needs to.
>
> (2) E.g adding new subscription ID.
>
> Unlike Subscription-Id-Type AVP which cannot be extended to a new type
> without a new application ID, a new AVP being proposed in RFC4006bis is:
>
>   Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
>                              [ Subscription-Id-E164 ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-IMSI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-SIP-URI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-NAI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-Private ]
>                            *[ AVP ]
>
> So, in order to add a new type (post RFC4006bis), you would need to submit
> draft with an AVP definition in it to could be added to the
> Subscription-Id-Extension as it is extensible.
> This new draft would be compliant with RFC4006bis and will therefore not
> require a new application ID.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Yuval
>
>
> From: Misha Zaytsev [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:07 PM
> To: Yuval Lifshitz
> Cc: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP
>
> Hi Yuval,
>
> May I ask you several questions to be able to understand the whole
> situation:
>
> 1. Why are you proposing to add new extendable AVPs only for some of the
> AVPs listed in section 12?
> I think the same concern is applicable for all these AVPs, isn't?
>
> 2. Could you clarify what official procedure to assign new available
> values is meant here?
> It is not working w/o defining new Application-ID as you mentioned above?
>
>
> 12.16.  Subscription-Id-Type AVP
>
>    As defined in Section 8.47, the Subscription-Id-Type AVP includes
>    Enumerated type values 0 - 4.  IANA has created and is maintaining a
>    namespace for this AVP.  All remaining values are available for
>    assignment by a Designated Expert [RFC2434].
>
> Excuse me in advance if what I'm asking about are well-known things.
> But still please clarify them at least for me...
>
> Thanks a lot in advance!
>
> /Misha
>
> 2017-01-25 11:29 GMT+03:00 Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]>:
> Hi Maryse,
> The idea is the following:
> •         If the CC client want to work with RFC4006bis only CC server,
> and want to make sure that the subscription ID is understood by the server,
> it may set the M-bit. Any RFC4006 server will reply with
> DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001)
> •         If the CC client is not sure whether the CC servers are RFC4006
> or RFC4006bis, or have a mix of servers, and want to work with both, it may
> not set the M-bit
> o   In this case it would send both AVPs for the old types, so that the
> new AVP will be ignored by the RFC4006 servers
> o   In a case of a new type of subscription, not covered in RFC4006, it
> may send the new AVP with the M-bit set, causing any old server to reply
> with DIAMETER_AVP_UNSUPPORTED (5001). It may also send the new AVP without
> the M-bit set, here the server would just ignore the AVP, but would
> probably reply DIAMETER_MISSING_AVP (5005) as it will not have any
> subscription ID
>
> Yuval
>
> From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:25 PM
> To: Yuval Lifshitz; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP
>
> Hi Yuval,
>
> Thanks for continuing on this.
> I am not sure to understand the difference between “may” and “must”, since
> with  “May” we can end having the M-bit set by the RFC4006bis CC client.
> I guess from the protocol’s perspective “may” and “must” makes no
> difference right?
>
> BR
> Maryse
>
> From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Yuval Lifshitz
> Sent: vendredi 13 janvier 2017 15:24
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [ALU] [Dime] RFC4006bis - Subscription-Id-Extension AVP
>
> Hi All,
> As part of the RFC4006bis work there are several AVPs that we plan on
> making future proof (See also: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dime/ticket/95).
> For example, Subscription-Id AVP cannot be extended to new types without
> changing the enumeration in Subscription-Id-Type AVP, which in turn
> requires a new application ID (something we really want to avoid).
> To solve this issue we propose adding a new, extendable AVP. In this
> example:
>
> Subscription-Id-Extension ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
>                              [ Subscription-Id-E164 ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-IMSI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-SIP-URI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-NAI ]
>                              [ Subscription-Id-Private ]
>                             *[ AVP ]
>
> When looking into Subscription-ID-Extension AVP  header flags I ran into a
> problem. The existing Subscription-ID AVP (and its sub-AVPs) are all marked
> with the M-bit as a “must”, probably because they hold the subscriber’s
> name which is critical information.
> However, in order for a RFC4006bis CC client to be able to communicate
> with an RFC4006 CC-server, they will have to be marked as “may”.
>
> Would appreciate your point of view on that topic?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Yuval
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>