An addition to the excerpts and questions in the below e-mail:
Here is an excerpt from draft-ietf-rap-sppi-05:
- the value "install" is used to indicate a PRC which a PDP can install in the PEP as provisioning information.
The framework-pib-04 draft does reference this draft. This draft also uses the word "must" for the PIB-ACCESS value of "notify". Should there be a bis for RFC3084 to specify that for Client-Type of 2 the NamedClientSI object is mandatory or should it be mandatory for all COPS-PR Client Types?
Regards,
Tina Iliff
-----Original Message-----
From: Iliff, Tina
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 4:15 PM
To: 'rap@ops.ietf.org'
Cc: Sunlin, Richard (c); Rawlins, Diana
Subject: COPS-PR DEC NamedClientSI object and framework-pib-04 Notify PRCs
All,
I need a little clarification on a certain topic: The COPS-PR NamedClientSI object. Here is an excerpt from COPS-PR RFC 3084:
The REQ from a policy provisioning client contains a COPS
'Configuration Request' context object and, optionally, any relevant named client specific information from the PEP.
Now, here is an excerpt from framework-pib-04:
The PIB indicates which capabilities the PEP must report to the PDP by means of the PIB-ACCESS clause as described in [SPPI].
Now, should the "must" in the framework-pib-04 be removed? I am currently interpreting this excerpt to mean that the PDP MUST expect all Notify PRCs in the NamedClientSI objects. However, RFC 3084 states that the NamedClientSI is optional and that a REQ may include 0 or more of these objects.
Another question: Should a PDP send a DEC Null if no NamedClientSI objects are encapsulated in the REQ or should defaults be assumed or is that an implementation choice?
Tina Iliff