[Dime] #4: Review from Sebastien Decugis

<lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com> Sat, 21 August 2010 03:53 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:54:13 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CC0EC36@ftrdmel1>
Thread-Topic: #4: Review from Sebastien Decugis
Thread-Index: Acs1PUN9KlUE1QWfRzyieycj4q16wgLpzYMQ
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] #4: Review from Sebastien Decugis
Precedence: list

#4: Review from Sebastien Decugis
----------------------------------------------+-------------------------
----------------------------------------------+----
 Reporter:  lionel.morand@...                   |       Owner:     
     Type:  enhancement                       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                             |   Milestone:     
Component:  realm-based-redirect              |     Version:     
 Severity:  In WG Last Call                   |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------------------+-------------------------
----------------------------------------------+----
 Bellow are my comments on this document. I believe there are a few
points  that would deserve to be clarified in the document, but nothing
blocking  the next steps.

 1) (3.1.1) second list item (editorial):

 Furthermore, the redirect agent MUST a Redirect-Realm AVP
                                    ^^^
                               missing word?


 2) (3.1.1) What if the the other peer advertised the Relay application?

 ==> Should the redirect agent consider that it supports the
Redirect-Realm  application?

 3) (3.1.1) "the message MUST include the Error-
       Reporting-Host AVP if the host setting the Result-Code AVP is
       different from the identity encoded in the Origin-Host AVP,"

 ==> IIUC this is an impossible situation, since the Redirect Agent did
not  forward the Request.
 I believe this text could be removed for clarity.

 4) (3.1.2)

 ==> What if the original request contains a Destination-Host AVP?
 In that case, should a UNABLE_TO_DELIVER error be returned?
 There is probably no point in sending to the alternate realm with a
Destination-Host in the previous realm, right?
 Unless maybe if the Destination-Realm of the request message does not
match the Origin-Realm of the Redirect indication (change of broker for
example). Any opinion?

 5) (3.2)

 ==> This section does not give the value of the M flag for the new AVP.
 By the semantics of the application, I believe the M flag should be
set,  right?

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/4>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

[Dime] #4: Review from Sebastien Decugis lionel.morand
Re: [Dime] [dime] #4: Review from Sebastien Decug… dime issue tracker
Re: [Dime] [dime] #4: Review from Sebastien Decug… dime issue tracker