Subject: [Dime] Resolution to issues 70 and 74

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:42:17 +0200

I have removed the examples section and moved the "Application 
Considerations" section to an appendix.

For issue 70 I also added the following wording to section 4.2.3:

    A reporting node MUST only send overload reports of a type advertised
    as supported by the reacting node.

       Note that a reacting node advertises support for the host and
       realm report types by including the OC-Supported-Features AVP in
       the request.  Support for other report types must be explicitly
       indicated by a new feature bit in the OC-Feature-Vector AVP.

The diff file is attached.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:17:02 -0500

Slight normative language quibble:

"MUST only" is a bit of a strange construction from a 2119 perspective, in that it implies a negation without an explicit NOT. I think we really mean "MUST NOT unless...".

> On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:42 AM, Steve Donovan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I have removed the examples section and moved the "Application Considerations" section to an appendix.
> 
> <Diff_ draft-ietf-dime-ovli-04.txt - draft-ietf-dime-ovli-04.txt.html>_______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:55:01 +0200

The other way of wording this would be as follows:

           A reporting node MUST NOT send overload reports of a type 
that has not been
           advertized as supported by the reacting node.

Which is an explicit double negation that is necessary to get the point 
across.  The above wording will be in the next revision of the draft.  
I'm open to other wording if someone has a cleaner way of getting this 
requirement across.

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:10:03 -0500

wfm

> On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:55 AM, Steve Donovan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>          A reporting node MUST NOT send overload reports of a type that has not been
> Which is an explicit double negation that is necessary to get the point across.  The above wording will be in the next revision of the draft.  I'm open to other wording if someone has a cleaner way of getting this requirement across.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve
>