Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing-02
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 04 August 2009 18:06 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0003A67D3; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QZaes1DRF24; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E5C3A62C1; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so1911926anc.4 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=n2VpFwzAy4moKEd+GQgmn53bjN49603ra5Ohrwpe6+w=; b=GIwNXoCY1ifqsbGnmxETaBmNwZlAIvJ2U0qAuOm2CWQy8jfkkLB8+IMfrIH126yOay 1G1I3wMxBQ2/IT9TxXSQozWUZfnP9JEKnRaVXvGCWm+iYXP5eoxsVJsguWy+BpYuydAV pUU1Py7VWTZctpRAqyLs2GUaE+TCVwYNdpz54=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=riSPqBR4iNz6h52sgtM9vPPciNdmXRhc6Pab3G1JlOD7EZiNW1j5mw9exkYz3mBIaj bVAJdRbUYX6mCVVaIc9SX43tkWEXuAH7vpDb3u+tVFFBjyvpHvq2O6JqqgyqStmLksth gnxi+8SRGPvOTFVjtX6gjafPx0jFtHT+LtUlc=
Received: by 10.100.58.12 with SMTP id g12mr10419645ana.70.1249409213363; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a88-114-170-222.elisa-laajakaista.fi ([72.14.241.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c14sm143600ana.12.2009.08.04.11.06.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <DE3F7847-10D1-43AD-889D-1753B1CA7E5C@gmail.com>
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
In-Reply-To: <274D46DDEB9F2244B2F1EA66B3FF54BC05686338@de01exm70.ds.mot.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:06:48 +0300
References: <274D46DDEB9F2244B2F1EA66B3FF54BC05685EA8@de01exm70.ds.mot.com> <4C124F82-50C8-4520-B3FE-7A4420C4DFDB@gmail.com> <274D46DDEB9F2244B2F1EA66B3FF54BC05686338@de01exm70.ds.mot.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: dime@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing-02
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:06:54 -0000
Hi Peter, On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:41 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote: > Hi, Jouni, > > Thanks, I went back and re-read Section 2.8 of RFC 3588 and > refreshed my understanding of Diameter Answer routing. You are > correct that the reverse path routing is taken care of by the > transaction state. Perhaps you could add one sentence about > the Answer routing with a reference to Section 2.8 of RFC 3588? Will add this. > > I suppose using the Application ID for expressing support for > the feature is ok if that is the will of the working group. I would say it fulfilled the description of a rough consensus. Everybody was equally unhappy ;) Cheers, Jouni > > -Pete > > jouni korhonen wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Thanks for the review. See my comments inline. >> >> >> On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:17 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote: >> >>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >>> comments you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing-02 >>> Reviewer: Pete McCann >>> Review Date: 2009-08-03 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-04 >>> IESG Telechat date: unknown >>> >>> Summary: Two major issues need discussion >>> >>> >>> Major issues: >>> >>> The draft seems to address only routing of Request commands. What >>> about Answers? Are Diameter proxies required to re-write the >> >> Answers follow the reverse path the request traversed. The answers >> are processed according to base RFC3588. >> >>> Origin-Realm and Origin-Host AVPs as the request gets routed? >> >> No. Both Origin-Realm and Origin-Host correspond to the entity that >> originated the request. >> >>> Are they required then to maintain state to map the responses back >>> to >>> the originating realm? The processing rules seem to strip off >> >> Not really. Intermediating agents only need to maintain a transaction >> state. This is the same as required for normal RFC3588 request-answer >> processing. >> >>> the decoration from the NAI; there might be a need for the home AAA >>> server to know the path that was taken through the network (routing >>> the Answer commands is only one possible reason). Maybe the >>> solution >>> is to provide a decorated Origin-Realm that is recomputed by each >>> hop. >> >> RFC3588 Route-Record AVP already provides this information. I see no >> reason to go any further here regarding to changes/enhancements to >> RFC3588 answer processing. >> >> >>>> >>>> 4.2. Ensuring Backwards Compatibility >>>> >>>> Implementations compliant to this specification MUST define a new >>>> Diameter application. This requirement is set to guarantee >>>> backwards compatibility with existing Diameter implementations, >>>> applications and deployments. Diameter agents not compliant with >>>> this specification will not advertise support for these new >>>> applications that implement the enhanced routing solution based on >>>> Decorated NAIs and will therefore be bypassed. >>> >>> This requirement troubles me; does this mean that every Diameter >>> application will need to define a whole set of Application-IDs, >>> based >>> on the cross-product of every feature that gets introduced? Maybe >>> this is a general problem with Diameter application versioning, and >>> it's too late to fix it. Is there a better way to somehow indicate >>> support for this feature? >> >> It indeed is a general issue with Diameter application versioning >> (some SDOs have introduced their own versioning schemes to avoid >> defining new applications for e.g. every new release). There was >> lengthy discussion of possible choices how to solve it for this I-D. >> Requiring a new application seemed to be the easiest way to get >> forward. Generally, one application can/should include several "new >> features" so the explosion on applications should not become a >> problem.. >> >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> End of Section 3: >>> >>>> [RFC5113] Section 2.3. also discusses NAI decoration related issues >>>> with EAP [RFC3748] in general. >>> Seems there is an extra period after "Section 2.3". Suggest >>> changing >>> the reference pointer to text, i.e., >>>> Section 2.3 of RFC5113 also discusses NAI decoration related issues >>>> with EAP [RFC3748] in general. >>> >>> Section 4.1: >>> >>>> an uniform >>> SHOULD BE: >>>> a uniform >>> >>> Section 6: >>>> In this case the NAS to the Diameter server AAA communication rely >>> on >>> SHOULD BE: >>>> In this case the NAS to Diameter server AAA communication relies on >> >> Thanks. Will fix these. >> >> Cheers, >> Jouni >
- [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-rout… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dime-nai-… McCann Peter-A001034