RE: SPPI - Access Clauses for COPS RPT accounting?

["Rawlins, Diana" <Diana.Rawlins@wcom.com>]

Keith,

Yes! Looks like it addresses the needed access definitions for reporting.

-Diana

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith McCloghrie [mailto:kzm@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:16 AM
To: Rawlins, Diana
Cc: rap@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: SPPI - Access Clauses for COPS RPT accounting?


I suggest it's OK for any PRC to be included in a REPORT.

I don't see a need for the SPPI to distinguish between PRCs which are
installed in a DECision message for the purpose of enabling REPORTs,
and PRCs which are installed in a DECision message for the purpose of
defining other policies.

I do think it's useful for the SPPI to distinguish between PRCs which
are *only* included in a REPORT, and PRCs which have a PIB-ACCESS value
of install and/or notify.

So, how about we add one additional value for the PIB-ACCESS clause:
'report-only'.  (In the algorithmic conversion to a MIB, this would
translate to the SMI's 'accessible-for-notify'.)

Keith.
 
> The SPPI does not define an access for enabling or reporting accounting
> policies. These access definitions are needed to distinguish policies for
> monitoring the policy usage from the policies used to determine
enforcement.
> For example, the policy for monitoring usage is enabled by the PDP with a
> policy instance in the provisioning DECISION, and it would be useful to
> identify this monitored usage Policy Class with an access of ENABLE. (As
> proposed in draft-rawlins-acct-fr-pib-00.txt)
> 
> Likewise, the PEP then REPORTs the usage policy. It would be useful to
> identify this access as REPORT. This distinguishes the access REPORT from
> NOTIFY (for example, the NOTIFY classes are included in the REQUEST for
> configuration. )
> 
> REPORT accounting type is a basic COPS operation. The definition (or
> clarification) of associated SPPI access clauses is needed. These two
> additional SPPI ACCESS clauses, (ENABLE, REPORT) seem useful. Comments?
> 
> -Diana
> 
>