Subject: [Dime] DOIC #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:51:23 +0200

All,

Now that the restructure of the DOIC specification is complete we need 
to start resolving open issues.  Those that entered the issues are 
encouraged to work to get them closed.

I'll start on #54 in this email.

The question is whether the OC-Report-Type AVP is required any time that 
an OC-OLR AVP is sent.

The current version of the draft is the same as the -02 version, showing 
the AVP as being required.  This was based on an earlier attempt to 
close the issue prior to -02 being published.

Susan has stated that she does not think it should be required.  If I 
understand correctly this is based on the assumption that an HSS would 
never send an OLR with report-type of any value but host.

Susan, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I don't believe this is a correct assumption.  It is reasonable for an 
HSS to send an OLR with report-type of realm.  This might happen in a 
non agent based deployment or in a deployment where the HSS (or more 
generically, server) has knowledge of the status of all servers for the 
application.

Based on this, I propose that the text be kept as is and that this issue 
be closed without changes to the specification.

The threshold for changing what is currently in the DOIC specification 
is rough consensus in the group that it should be changed.  Anyone with 
an opinion is encouraged to state it now. This is not a vote (we don't 
vote in the IETF...) but an attempt to see if we have consensus to 
either close the issue without a change in the specification or if we 
have consensus to change the specification.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:18:47 -0500

I thought our chairs had declared a rough consensus on this. Do I have that confused with another issue?

On Jul 16, 2014, at 7:51 AM, Steve Donovan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Now that the restructure of the DOIC specification is complete we need to start resolving open issues.  Those that entered the issues are encouraged to work to get them closed.
> 
> The question is whether the OC-Report-Type AVP is required any time that an OC-OLR AVP is sent.
> 
> The current version of the draft is the same as the -02 version, showing the AVP as being required.  This was based on an earlier attempt to close the issue prior to -02 being published.
> 
> Susan has stated that she does not think it should be required.  If I understand correctly this is based on the assumption that an HSS would never send an OLR with report-type of any value but host.
> 
> I don't believe this is a correct assumption.  It is reasonable for an HSS to send an OLR with report-type of realm.  This might happen in a non agent based deployment or in a deployment where the HSS (or more generically, server) has knowledge of the status of all servers for the application.
> 
> Based on this, I propose that the text be kept as is and that this issue be closed without changes to the specification.
> 
> The threshold for changing what is currently in the DOIC specification is rough consensus in the group that it should be changed.  Anyone with an opinion is encouraged to state it now. This is not a vote (we don't vote in the IETF...) but an attempt to see if we have consensus to either close the issue without a change in the specification or if we have consensus to change the specification.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:25:09 +0200

You are correct, that is what lead to the current text in the -03 
draft.  There has been an objection raised to the declaration.

Steve

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:40:43 +0300

Hi,

Lionel declared a rough concensus on #54. This issue should be closed.

- Jouni

7/16/2014 5:25 PM, Steve Donovan kirjoitti:
>>> Now that the restructure of the DOIC specification is complete we
>>> need to start resolving open issues.  Those that entered the issues
>>> are encouraged to work to get them closed.
>>>
>>> The current version of the draft is the same as the -02 version,
>>> showing the AVP as being required.  This was based on an earlier
>>> attempt to close the issue prior to -02 being published.
>>>
>>> understand correctly this is based on the assumption that an HSS
>>> would never send an OLR with report-type of any value but host.
>>>
>>> I don't believe this is a correct assumption.  It is reasonable for
>>> an HSS to send an OLR with report-type of realm.  This might happen
>>> in a non agent based deployment or in a deployment where the HSS (or
>>> more generically, server) has knowledge of the status of all servers
>>> for the application.
>>>
>>> Based on this, I propose that the text be kept as is and that this
>>> issue be closed without changes to the specification.
>>>
>>> The threshold for changing what is currently in the DOIC
>>> specification is rough consensus in the group that it should be
>>> changed.  Anyone with an opinion is encouraged to state it now. This
>>> is not a vote (we don't vote in the IETF...) but an attempt to see if
>>> we have consensus to either close the issue without a change in the
>>> specification or if we have consensus to change the specification.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:21:24 +0200

Thanks, I have closed the issue.

Steve

---

From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:19:26 +0000

Steve,

please see inline.

Regards
Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] DOIC #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

All,

Now that the restructure of the DOIC specification is complete
[Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)] I don't think the restructuring is complete. I did send comments and identified issues which in my understanding  are not resolved yet.
 we need 
to start resolving open issues.  Those that entered the issues are 
encouraged to work to get them closed.

I don't believe this is a correct assumption.  It is reasonable for an 
HSS to send an OLR with report-type of realm.
[Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)] I do not agree
  This might happen in a 
non agent based deployment or in a deployment where the HSS (or more 
generically, server) has knowledge of the status of all servers for the 
application.[Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)]  How would the HSS get that knowledge? It is the task of the node that selects the server to aggregate and to convert received host-reports into a realm-report. If we want the server to do that we need to describe how overload information is exchanged from one reporting node to another reporting node (ensuring exact synchronization). The agreed concept of DOIC associations between reacting node and reporting node does not cover this.

The threshold for changing what is currently in the DOIC specification 
is rough consensus in the group that it should be changed.  Anyone with 
an opinion is encouraged to state it now. 
[Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)] I can accept to keep text as it is (although my preference is in favour of Susan's approach), as it allows the HSS to send host-reports and does not force it to send realm-reports.
This is not a vote (we don't 
vote in the IETF...) but an attempt to see if we have consensus to 
either close the issue without a change in the specification or if we 
have consensus to change the specification.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: "Shishufeng (Susan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:22:58 +0000

Dear Steve,

Sorry for late reply due to busy meeting last week.

Firstly thanks for kicking off the discussion.

I'm not saying that this AVP will never be used, but I believe it can never be used by a server, e.g. HSS. My understanding is that this AVP is used by the agent which may have the realm knowledge. For the case you mentioned that the HSS has knowledge of the status of all servers for the application, the HSS would be kind of agent, not a pure server. Anyway, with the AVP as an optional, it does not prevent the HSS from using it for this particular case. For all other cases, the AVP is useless for the server, I didn't see benefit to define it as mandatory for the server to always put this AVP into the message.

Best Regards,
Susan

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:00:26 -0400

Susan,

Please see the referenced email.  This issue has been closed due to an 
earlier declaration that rough consensus has been achieved.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg07499.html

Regards,

Steve

---

From: "Shishufeng (Susan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:10:16 +0000

Hello Steve,

I don't think so. If it is closed, it should be reopened.

I ever raised twice regarding this issue before version 02 and version 03 and no one replied. It was strange to close an issue people still have concern and not convinced. Lionel please clarify how the consensus was reached, on which I really don't understand. Though IETF may not be the same as 3GPP, while I still think you should have some fair ways to reach consensus, not like this. It is obvious that almost all 3GPP colleagues think there is no reason to have this AVP as mandatory, except Lionel maybe.

Best Regards,
Susan

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Donovan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:00 PM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC #54: OC-Report-Type as mandatory AVP

Susan,

Please see the referenced email.  This issue has been closed due to an earlier declaration that rough consensus has been achieved.

Regards,

Steve