Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #2

<> Mon, 02 December 2013 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A12D1AE25C for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:06:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AkIqn_vFoCok for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876BC1AE38A for <>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5DA9D2AC48A; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:06:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 05189158072; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:06:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:06:31 +0100
From: <>
To: Jouni <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #2
Thread-Index: AQHO7zgFymEqO+XoAkOsBov9JhbWn5pAmZqQ
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:06:31 +0000
Message-ID: <19936_1385975192_529C4D98_19936_10950_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E30F190@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2013.12.2.53015
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #2
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:06:40 -0000


Not sure that it is so "SDO" specific. But it is true that we should clarify that this concept is not clearly described in RFC6733 and it is up to the application to define the specific session states when not relying on the session-id and the session state machine defined in RFC6733.


-----Message d'origine-----
De : DiME [] De la part de Jouni
Envoyé : lundi 2 décembre 2013 09:25
À :
Objet : [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #2

In Section 3.1.1 where pseudo-session applications are discussed shouldn't
we also state that the pseudo-session application is somewhat a SDO specific
jewel? IMHO it is not really what RFC6733 session-less application is,
although from the base protocol point of view it is compliant.

- Jouni
DiME mailing list


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.