Subject: RE: A question about SPPI

From: "Da Silva, Pedro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:08:12 -0000

Man, Ravi,

The uniqueness clause also states that "The specified set of attributes
provide a necessary and sufficient set of values by which to identify an
instance of this PRC".
As such does an optional attribute constitute a necessary one for UNIQUENESS
clauses?
Also, considering the case where a UNIQUENESS clause's set is composed of
optional attributes only, does that constitute a sufficient set by which to
identify an instance of the PRC?

cheers,
Pedro

-----Original Message-----
From: Sahita, Ravi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:50 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: A question about SPPI

Man Li,

The UNIQUENESS clause itself is optional. The SPPI does
not put any constraints on which attributes can be specified
in this clause other than - 
1.  The attribute named in the PIB-INDEX clause may not be 
    present in the UNIQUENESS clause.  
2. An attribute may not appear more than once in a UNIQUENESS 
   clause. 

So, yes, the UNIQUNESS clause can contain optional attributes
as long as it follows the rules above.

Hope that helps,
Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A question about SPPI

In a PIB table, some attributes can be optional. Should the UNIQUENESS
clause exclude optional attributes? In other words, can a UNIQUENESS clause
contain any optional attributes?

Man Li

---

From: "Yacine El Mghazli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:37:41 +0100

Hi everybody,

At the last IETF meeting, Shai Herzog launched a discussion about a COPS
common model merging both outsourcing and provisioning modes. The fact was
that some recent drafts use COPS-PR to OUTSOURCE information towards the PDP
(umts, access-bind, sls...) and the goal was to identify where the 2 modes
meets and to agree on a common model.

This discussion was supposed to take place on the mailing list, but...
doesnt come !

Speaking as a co-author of the cops-sls draft, I'm wondering about this
common model and, after all, about the future of such practises.

thanks,
yacine

-- Yacine El Mghazli
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Alcatel R&I
  Next Generation Router & Cross-Connect - NGRX
  Marcoussis, France
  Tel  +33 1 6963 4187
  Fax  +33 1 6963 1169
  [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Nguyen Thi Mai Trang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:37:47 +0100

Hi everybody,

I'm also interested in this presentation at 52th IETF. This mode take advantage
of both the dynamicity of Outsourcing mode and the flexibility of using PIB of
Configuration mode. I had a question about "What type of ClientSI (Signaled
ClientSI or Named ClientSI) we can use in the unifed mode?" that was supposed to
discussed in the mailling list.

I would like to know in COPS-UMTS, which type of ClientSI object is intended to
be used?

In my opinon, and also in COPS-SLS, I used Signaled ClientSI  because the
objective of the information in the clientSI object is signalling in despite of
their form of PIB. I preferes the terminology "Using PIB in Outsourcing mode" to
"Using COPS-PR in Outsourcing mode" because, for me, COPS-PR is already the
provisioning mode. "Using Provisioning mode in Outsourcing mode" sounds not
logic :-)

What do you think about it?
Thanks,
Mai Trang

--
----------------------------------------------------
Nguyen Thi Mai Trang
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
Dept. INFRES - Bur. C234-4
46 Rue Barrault - 75013 Paris
Tel: 01 45 81 74 61 - Fax : 01 45 81 31 19
email : [email-masked]

---

From: Kwok Ho Chan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:02:38 -0500

In the UMTS Go PIB, we are using the Provisioning Mode.
We pick this because we are thinking of a spectrum of dynamic-ness of
provisioning.  For example, the aggregated provisioning using the DiffServ
PIB more toward the core of the network can be more static.  While the
per user service policy more toward the edge of the network can be more
dynamic.  Equipment vendors may not want to control and dictate how
static/dynamic the provisioning have to be, the providers who create the
services using the equipment should have flexibility on determining the
degree of dynamic-ness required to create the service that fits the market
the provider is in.

Notice a continuous spectrum of dynamic-ness of provisioning provide
a more flexible model that can be easily fitted to the service one wants
to create using Policy Control.
IMHO, I think this is better than a binary choice of Outsourcing/Provisioning.

I have invited Shai to be a co-author of the COPS Architecture draft that
I started writing to put all these together.  Shai have accepted the invitation
and we will be working on this shortly with couple of other co-authors.
So I think this discussion on the list is good to start this process.

Please provide further comments and other points of view.
-- Kwok --