IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79171AE20D for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:23:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwTf7kkiHrn6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAD91AE180 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB60NJLj068861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:23:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040_1386250088_52A07F68_20040_916_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E32B0E9@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:23:19 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AAD05B79-3B48-442F-A014-EC1473FFD113@nostrum.com>
References: <832D36A4-E2D5-4640-A8D5-F9B3EEDBC56A@nostrum.com> <6390_1385631044_52970D44_6390_18593_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E30748E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519BD31@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <47383DC2-1A1B-4D1A-ADD5-9E3CE60B06C8@gmail.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D1F867@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <8467_1385735507_5298A553_8467_17054_3_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E309D0D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <529CA930.4030006@usdonovans.com> <13482_1386001111_529CB2D7_13482_11387_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E311068@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2AB88923-E019-4EAF-9512-E677D5798DB3@nostrum.com> <17146_1386112679_529E66A7_17146_16391_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E31A900@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <C86346CB-2D05-44C1-8ED6-2ABB15711671@nostrum.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D201CB3EC6@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <52A07A1E.5060502@usdonovans.com> <2004! 0_1386250088_52A07F68_20040_916_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E32B0E9@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "ext lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:23:26 -0000

On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:28 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:

> Could everyone live/survive with the "implicit approach" with the extensibility mechanism allowing future extensions if needed?
>  

I can grudgingly "live with it", as long as our extensibility features allow us to create future extensions that work differently. 

But I think it is a mistake to go that route. We have a choice between a highly constrained solution, that I think will result in tortured deployment architectures in real-world deployments, and a considerably more general solution. 

 think the cost of the more general solution is trivial. I think the difference in implementation complexity between the two approaches might be a wash for certain nodes, but favor the self-contained approach for others (e.g. an agent than handles _many_ applications).

 think the complexity created when operators try to work around the limitations of the contextual approach will be significant.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email