Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS Application Draft

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:23:48 +0300

I quickly read through the draft to see whether it is ready for WGLC.

I noticed the following issues

* Section 7.2 "QoS Application Defined AVPs" should actually be renamed 
to "AVP Flag Table" and then it should list all the AVPs relevant for 
this document.
At least we should indicate how the AVP flag setting would look like in 
this application. One option would be to leave the AVP flag setting 
unchanged.
I believe we should, however, use a different AVP flag setting of the 
QoS-Resources AVP, namely:

                                                   +------------------+
                                                   |  AVP Flag Rules  |
 +-------------------------------------------------|----+---+----+----+
 |                          AVP  Section           |MUST|MAY|SHLD|MUST|
 | Attribute Name           Code Defined Data Type |    |   | NOT| NOT|
 +-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+
 |QoS-Capability            TBD    3.1  Grouped    |    |M,P|    | V  |
 |QoS-Profile-Template      TBD    3.2  Unsigned64 |    |M,P|    | V  |
 |QoS-Resources             TBD    3.3  Grouped    |    |M,P|    | V  |
 |Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule  TBD    3.4  Grouped    |    |M,P|    | V  |
 |QoS-Semantics             TBD    3.5  Enumerated |    |M,P|    | V  |
 |QoS-Parameters            TBD    3.6  OctetString|    |M,P|    | V  |
 |QoS-Rule-Precedence       TBD    3.7  Unsigned32 |    |M,P|    | V  |
 +-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+

* We don't seem to include the QoS-Capability AVP in the document. I 
believe, however, we should do that.

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "Sun, Dong \(Dong\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:33:18 -0500

Hannes,

I agree that current structure is not very clean since section 7.2
includes both reused AVPs from the I-D "QoS-attributes" and new AVPs
defined by this doc (i.e. QoS-Authz-Data and Bound-Auth-Session-Id). We
may separate the reused AVPs from newly defined AVPs into 2 subsections,

in addition, I suggest to only list the name, AVP code and reference as
that in section 7.1, instead of replicating the entire AVP flag table .
It can ensure the consistency between the reused AVPs and original
definition. (BTW, do you think which flag setting of thos reused AVP
needs to be changed? What's the reason?)

The section 7.2 can be revised as follows:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7.2 Reused QoS Application AVPs
The QoS application uses the QoS application AVPs, defined in the
QoS-attributes ([I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]).

   Attribute Name            AVP Code     Reference
[I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes]
   QoS-Capability            TBD          section 3.1  
   QoS-Profile-Template      TBD          section 3.2  
   QoS-Resources             TBD          section 3.3  
   Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule  TBD          section 3.4  
   QoS-Semantics             TBD          section 3.5  
   QoS-Parameters            TBD          section 3.6  
   QoS-Rule-Precedence       TBD          section 3.7  

7.3 New QoS Application AVPs
This section lists the AVPs that are introduced specifically for this
   application.  The following new AVPs are defined: Bound-Auth-
   Session-Id and the QoS-Authz-Data AVP. 
....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any comment?

Regards,
Dong

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 5:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS Application Draft

                                                   +------------------+
                                                   |  AVP Flag Rules  |

Ciao
Hannes