IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] DOIC: Self-Contained OLRs

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 21:37 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 240781AE043 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:37:29 -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 rGBaKCDGJDaR for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:37:28 -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 406951AD8E1 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:37:28 -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 rB6LbKr6031416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:37:21 -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: <39597F4C-52C0-4058-9559-92752389DA47@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:37:20 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <800D5A8D-7B09-44C0-9390-AEED2D641CB6@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_1386250 088_52A07F68_20040_916_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E32B0E9@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <39597F4C-52C0-4058-9559-92752389DA47@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 21:37:29 -0000

On Dec 6, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> After this LONG thread, it seems that there are strong arguments against the self-contained OLRs and little support.
>> In the contrary, it seems that the principle of OLR related to the application in use is technically OK for everyone.
>> 
>> So the question is quite simple:
>> 
>> Could everyone live/survive with the "implicit approach" with the extensibility mechanism allowing future extensions if needed?
> 
> Yes for implicit. (and less text edits for me :)
> 
> There is no need to mention "future extension" possibility here.
> Anyone is free to extend OLRs in the future using the defined
> approach: allocate a new feature flag and define how to use it.
> 

I'm sure there are many corners we can paint ourselves into that would prevent certain avenues of extension. I'm not saying we've done that for this particular avenue. I don't think we have, and we don't necessarily have to put text about it in the draft. I took the mention of extensibility as a condition of my answers to the question.

> - JOuni

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email