[Dime] [dime] #38: Server Farm Definition Issue

"dime issue tracker" <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 07 February 2014 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 2C4261A04BE for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:37:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 jIyRj7Gv3iQj for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A6B1A0478 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48663 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WBsB7-0005Zy-BX; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 21:37:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com
X-Trac-Project: dime
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:37:37 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/38
Message-ID: <057.23609e95665c9eb1e8580a31702a64b0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 38
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, dime@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ben@nostrum.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #38: Server Farm Definition Issue
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: dime@ietf.org
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, 07 Feb 2014 20:37:42 -0000

#38: Server Farm Definition Issue

 A "server farm" is defined as "A set of Diameter servers that can handle
 any request for a given set of Diameter applications.". This is not
 strictly true. For example, if a request includes a Destination-Server
 AVP, then then in general only that particular server in the farm can
 handle the request.

 I assume that we don't mean to limit the server farm concept to situations
 where the entire farm is known by a single Diameter-Identity, do we?

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-docdt-dime-
  ben@nostrum.com        |  ovli@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor        |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-       |    Version:  1.0
  docdt-dime-ovli        |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Active WG    |
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/38>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>