[Dime] #6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue on changing the semantics of Redirection-Agent

<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 05:53:37 +0200
Message-ID: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CC0EC35@ftrdmel1>
Thread-Topic: #6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue on changing the semantics of Redirection-Agent
Thread-Index: Acs5+DNGJcrHMeZRQludAQSkE/zi4wG7C0mA
From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] #6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue on changing the semantics of Redirection-Agent
Precedence: list

#6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue on changing the semantics of
Redirection-Agent
----------------------------------------------+-------------------------
----------------------------------------------+----
 Reporter:  lionel.morand@...                   |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                             |   Milestone:     
Component:  realm-based-redirect              |     Version:     
 Severity:  In WG Last Call                   |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------------------+-------------------------
----------------------------------------------+----
 I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-03 document -- or
I  should say i started but I had to stop because there are serious
fundamental issues with this draft.


 I should start with the fact that i think the problem statement raised
by  the draft is valid. Also, I think that Diameter base 3588 should
have  supported Realm based redirection as well as host based
redirection.
 Actually Realm-based redirection are probably more useful.


 However, the problem I am having is that the draft is changing the
semantics of a Redirect Agent as defined by base and I dont think that
we  should be allowed to do that.


 I get that the draft got around backwards capability issue surrounding
the  new AVPs be introduced by asserting that only new applications will
support the attributes.


 But in order to deliver this feature in 3588 the behavior of the
Redirect  Agent had to change.


 This new redirect agent has to differentiate between applications that
do  support realm base redirection vs non-realmbased redirection.


 This is new base behavior and thus should be done in Diameter V2


 There is an alternative - which i thought was the approach taken when i
started to read the draft and that is:


 -let the Application itself perform the redirection.  To use the
example  provided, if the operator does not want to host the application
anymore,  it can let the Application respond back with the realm
and/host  redirection attributes.

--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/6>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

[Dime] #6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue on changin… lionel.morand
Re: [Dime] [dime] #6: Review from Avi Lior: Issue… dime issue tracker