Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue #272 - Separation of the prepaid and postpaid accounting sessions

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:32:53 +0200

Hi all,

The consensus on this issue seemed to indicate that this change should not
be made in the base spec, but could be addressed in an application document,
so I considering this as a reject.

John

Issue #272	
Description of issue: Separation of the prepaid and postpaid accounting sessions
Submitter name: Juha-Pekka Koskinen 
Submitter email address: [email-masked] 
Date first submitted: January 31, 2002 
Reference: draft-hakala-diameter-credit-control-01.txt
Document: Base (draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-08.txt) 
Comment type: T 
Priority: 1
Section: 9.5 and 9.8.1 
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 17:06:44 +0200

> so I considering this as a reject.

I basically agree with the issue, but disagree about the way it has been
provided in the proposed text. I would rather have had a single new AVP
that simply lists the 'priority' of the accounting data. We could invent
two, or maybe even more priority classes. This would then not e.g. have
an impact state machines etc.

Then it is an another matter whether this change should be in the
base, a new generic AVP definition, or an application. My view is actually
that this can *not* be a part of an application, because then app-unaware
proxies will not be able to take in account the priority! However, it
might still be possible to define this as a single new Diameter AVP
not associated with any specific application. Can we do that? If not,
my suggestion is to include that in the base now. I can provide text
if necessary.

Jari