IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Dime: Diameter Overload IETF requirements, review

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 06 December 2012 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEB921F86DC for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:38:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGjAumQsm76C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:38:49 -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 9117F21F86CE for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:38:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.14] (cpe-76-187-92-156.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.92.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qB6Ecg66092091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:38:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <23E0ABAF-E856-44A9-8F6D-C88B8CAB2A57@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:38:44 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E7C93CF-3471-402C-9F79-0165575A53C0@nostrum.com>
References: <C472E6A4C17FA14E90533C0369A4798B20EB463C6F@FRMRSSXCHMBSA1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <23E0ABAF-E856-44A9-8F6D-C88B8CAB2A57@computer.org>
To: Eric McMurry <emcmurry@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.187.92.156 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Dime: Diameter Overload IETF requirements, review
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:38:50 -0000

On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Eric McMurry <emcmurry@computer.org> wrote:

>> 
>>  
>> 	• Last sentence of REQ 35 appears unclear, wording may be reviewed or this sentence may be suppressed.
> 
> We can probably strike that.  What do you think, Ben?

The point was to say that sharing data between non-adjacent nodes might require a different mechanism than exchanging between adjacent nodes. But, whether that is true or not, it's not necessary to say it here. I concur with striking it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email