Hi Tony,

 >  From the testing I've done, many ril implementations seem to also
> optimize this case and just return the same interface/settings when a
> data call is requested for an APN which already has an active call.

Then that will be something for you to solve then.  oFono actually 
expects a different interface entirely for each active context.

> I'd assumed that mmsd used 'MessageProxy' directly, but after
> re-examination, I see that it's using "Settings.Proxy".
>
> That said in our case if we'd like NetworkManager to handle the route
> configuration, wouldn't it make sense to use 'MessageProxy' directly?  I
> guess I'm not sure I understand the difference between 'Settings.Proxy'
> and 'MessageProxy' as the former seems to be a copy of the latter.

It is due to historical / design reasons.  Using Settings.Proxy would 
allow us to run a local proxy instead of relying on the remote Proxy. 
This allows extra flexibility in the future.  Whether this is still 
something we need can be discussed.

> One last point, it looks like the ofono code presumes that a
> 'MessageProxy' value is always in IPV4 number-and-dots notation. Some of
> the proxies defined for APNs in apns-conf contain hostnames.  My guess
> is that this would cause problems for a stand-alone MMS APN, but would
> work with a combined context?

Since for MMS contexts the only route is via a proxy, DNS resolution is 
impossible.  MessageProxy has to be an ipv4 address.  For combined 
contexts this might be relaxed.

> Re: authtype specifically, we've seen at one least modem which chokes
> with our default settings for this parameter.  That said, this may have
> been an operator specific behavior...
>

3GPP mandates that CHAP is always supported.  In fact the authentication 
is not done against the modem, instead the modem simply takes the 
challenge-response data and forwards it as a part of context activation 
procedure.  Some operators were not following their own standards and 
were not accepting CHAP data, hence the need for authtype.  Last I heard 
this was no longer a problem.  If there are still hold outs, I'd be 
interested in hearing about it.

> Looking at a fairly recent apns-conf, there are close to 500 APNs which
> specify authtype, out of a db of ~2000.  As this is a parameter that our
> rilmodem driver could use when setting up a data call, I would say this
> is useful.

And I would ask that you find at least one example where a context 
activation fails when using a non-default authtype.

> Understood, however some of these attributes might be interesting to
> other processes using ofono to access the contexts which have been
> provisioned ( and persisted on-disk ).

Concrete examples?

>
> Again, this is the reason I went ahead and added support for an
> ExtraData dictionary that captures all the extra attributes we can't map
> directly to context properties.  This seemed like the least intrusive
> approach to us.  Are all of these additioanl atrributes absoultely
> critical to us right now?  Probably not, but why throw information away?
>

Lots of reasons.  Here are the top two:

First, any code that gets accepted gets reviewed and maintained.  You 
are asking us to maintain code that is of dubious value.  So right away 
that is a non-starter.

Second, the API is frozen.  Things can be added, but not removed.  It is 
much easier to add something when you need it than to remove it when you 
realize your ideas were wrong in the first place.

> Also, as Slava from Jolla pointed out, it also might be nice to use this
> mechanism ( or something similar ) to add some additional private data
> to a context, such as "user-selected", or maybe even a "last-connected".
>

Yes it _might_ be nice to someone somewhere ;)  But you still need to 
answer how this is of value to the oFono project?  Remember our core 
design philosophy, Minimal and Complete.  And then ask yourself whether 
adding a particular feature fulfills that philosophy.

>
> Sure, if we stick to just Internet/MMS, the number could be managable.
> My point was if an operator defined 3-4 APNS, and each was a multi-usage
> APN ( eg. "default,mms,supl" ), then you'd end up with nine contexts (
> this assumes creation of a SUPL context type ).

We have a favorite phrase around here, "We don't deal with 
hypotheticals".  Find me an operator that did that, and I will consider 
this case.  Until then it doesn't exist :)

>
> At the moment we're really focused on MMS support, and so at minimum we
> want shared contexts to work for Internet and MMS together. This by
> itself I still believe is a worthy goal, and I think it's do-able with
> minor changes to the core.
>

Agreed ;)

Regards,
-Denis