Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 296: Possible new AVP for MobileIPv4

From: Tony Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 13:22:36 -0800

Hello David and All,

I haven't seen any comments on this issue, so I'm not sure what people
think about this.

If we think it's useful, I could add something like the following:

"7.5  Event-Timestamp AVP

The The Event-Timestamp (AVP Code 55) is of type Unsigned32, and MAY be
included in an Accounting-Request message to record the time that this
event occurred on the mobility agent, in seconds since January 1, 1970
00:00 UTC."

Comments please,

Tony

Issue 296: Possible new AVP for MobileIPv4
Submitter name: David Spence
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: March 4, 2002
Reference:
Document: MobileIPv4
Comment type: T
Priority: 2
Section:
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

The following attribute is defined in RADIUS for use in accounting
messages.It might be useful in the MobileIPv4 application.

CODE NAME RFC
--------- ------------------ ----
55 Event-Timestamp 2869

Requested change:

Consider adding this attribute to MobileIPv4 as a Diameter AVP.

Note: This AVP will need to be defined in NASREQ for RADIUS
compatibility. See issue TBA.

---

From: "Bob Kopacz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:47:21 -0500

Hi Tony,

OK, I'll bite.  It seems to me that allowing the Event-Timestamp AVP
couldn't
do any harm, and might be helpful.  The virtue of the Event-Timestamp AVP is
that mobility agents can send multiple accounting messages (start, interim,
stop), all of which will reflect the same session start-time.  That is, a MA
can send an Accounting Start with an Event-Timestamp(value=T).  N seconds
later, the MA can send an Accounting Stop with an Event-Timestamp(value=T+N)
and Acct-Session-Time(value=N).

If you include your proposed text, you might consider changing the type
from Unsigned32 to Time (an Unsigned32-derived type defined in the Base).

Bob K.

> From: [email-masked] on behalf of Tony Johansson
[[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 296: Possible new AVP for MobileIPv4
> Hello David and All,
think about this.
> included in an Accounting-Request message to record the time that this
event
> occurred on the mobility agent, in seconds since January 1, 1970 00:00
UTC."

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 20:05:08 -0600

My only fear is that there are *many* useful AVPs that we can spend WAY too
much time defining.

While I do agree that Event-Timestamp seems like a very good idea, I'm 
afraid that if I vote *yes* to this change, there will be a flood of new
useful AVPs that people want inserted into the base drafts.

Since you *can* put in the Event-Timestamp now, I don't see any reason to
specify it in the draft.

So, I vote *no*  (Even though, I think the AVP is a good idea)

-Dave

On Monday, 01 Apr 2002, Bob Kopacz wrote:
>    >   From:   [1][email-masked]  on  behalf  of  Tony  Johansson
>    [[2][email-masked]]
>    > To: [3][email-masked]; [4][email-masked]
>    >  I  haven't  seen  any  comments on this issue, so I'm not sure what
>    people think about this.
>    >
>    >  included  in  an Accounting-Request message to record the time that
>    this event
>    >  occurred  on  the  mobility agent, in seconds since January 1, 1970
>    00:00 UTC."
>    >
>    > Comments please,
>    >
>    > Tony
>    >
>    >
>    > Submitter email address: [5][email-masked]
> References
>    1. mailto:[email-masked]
>    2. mailto:[email-masked]
>    3. mailto:[email-masked]
>    4. mailto:[email-masked]
>    5. mailto:[email-masked]

-- 
David Frascone

           He who laughs last probably made a backup.

---

From: Johan Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:43:16 +0200

I think *a* timestamp for accounting records is useful when performing 
fault recovery as described in 9.4 of the base draft. I think it might 
even be required to trace users' usage correctly. I could have sworn 
that an avp was introduced for this purpose in the base draft sometime 
just before the IETF meeting but I can find no evidence of this 
searching the mail archive at merit. Then again I probably couldn't find 
this message using the search function there.

I want a timestamp communicated in all ACRs for this reason but in my 
opinion it is inherent in all accounting and as such belongs in the base 
draft and not the mobile ip draft.

j