Subject: [Dime] Ulrich suggested change number 3

From: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 17:06:59 -0600

Ulrich,

For suggested change number 3:

Section 3.2, last two paragraphs:
Existing text:
    The DCA mechanism must also allow the scenario where the set of
    features supported by the sender of a request and by agents in the
    path of a request differ.  In this case, the agent updates the OC-
    Supported-Features AVP to reflect the mixture of the two sets of
    supported features.

       Note: The logic to determine the content of the modified  OC-
       Supported-Features AVP is out-of-scope for this specification and
       is left to implementation decisions.  Care must be taken not to
       introduce interoperability issues for downstream or upstream DOIC
       nodes.

Comment: It is perfectly ok (in this case) for the agent not to update and not to modify.

Proposal: It is proposed to replace the two paragraphs with the following:
    The DCA mechanism must also allow the scenario where the set of
    features supported by the sender of a request and by agents in the
    path of a request differ.  In this case, the agent can update the OC-
    Supported-Features AVP to reflect the mixture of the two sets of
    supported features.

       Note: The logic to determine whether and if how to modify the
       content of the OC-Supported-Features AVP is out-of-scope for this
       specification and is left to implementation decisions.  Care must
       be taken not to introduce interoperability issues for downstream
       or upstream DOIC nodes.

I don't see the need for the change as the paragraph is talking 
specifically about the scenario where an agent would change the 
OC-Supported-Features AVP.   That said, the change in the first 
paragraph is ok.  If we make that change then I suggest a cleaned up 
first sentence of the next paragraph as follows:

"Note: The logic to determine if the content of the 
OC-Supported-Features AVP should be changed is out-of-scope for this 
document, as is the logic to determine the content of a modified 
OC-Supported-Features AVP.  These are left to implementation decisions..."

Regards,

Steve

---

From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:30:46 +0000

Steve,

please see inline.

Ulrich

From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 12:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Ulrich suggested change number 3

Ulrich,

      Note: The logic to determine whether and if how to modify the
      content of the OC-Supported-Features AVP is out-of-scope for this
      specification and is left to implementation decisions.  Care must
      be taken not to introduce interoperability issues for downstream
      or upstream DOIC nodes.
I don't see the need for the change as the paragraph is talking specifically about the scenario where an agent would change the OC-Supported-Features AVP.
<Ulrich> I do not agree. The paragraph is talking specifically about the case where the set of features supported by the sender of a request and by agents in the path of a request differ. In this case it is certainly true that the agent can update (modify, change) the OC-Supported-Features AVP. It is, however, also true that in this case the agent can choose not to update.</Ulrich> 
That said, the change in the first paragraph is ok.
<Ulrich> thank you </Ulrich>
If we make that change then I suggest a cleaned up first sentence of the next paragraph as follows:

"Note: The logic to determine if the content of the  OC-Supported-Features AVP should be changed is out-of-scope for this document, as is the logic to determine the content of a modified OC-Supported-Features AVP.  These are left to implementation decisions..."
<Ulrich> The clean up is fine</Ulrich>

Regards,

Steve

---

From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:09:22 +0000

Steve, Ulrich,

I am fine with modification agreement.
Thanks
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: martes, 09 de diciembre de 2014 15:31
To: ext Steve Donovan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ulrich suggested change number 3

Steve,

please see inline.

Ulrich

Ulrich,

<Ulrich> I do not agree. The paragraph is talking specifically about the case where the set of features supported by the sender of a request and by agents in the path of a request differ. In this case it is certainly true that the agent can update (modify, change) the OC-Supported-Features AVP. It is, however, also true that in this case the agent can choose not to update.</Ulrich> That said, the change in the first paragraph is ok.

Regards,

Steve

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime