IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue #23 - Proposed resolution

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 20:20 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 953FD1A032C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 gcCuAPCHU0jh for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 001551A0326 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s6UKJj68057405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:20:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D7F470.3090500@usdonovans.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:20:34 -0500
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 428444433.9985-83766e25f789b7707e6fae08da93bb7a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5844172E-11E4-457A-9854-F01722402C3F@nostrum.com>
References: <53D7F470.3090500@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/KpCeWBYGmDzXq70V6obe-SdBheE
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #23 - Proposed resolution
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: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:20:37 -0000

I concur.

On Jul 29, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> Issue @23 points out that there are two interpretations of the realm overload report in the current text.  One implies that a realm report applies to all requests sent to the realm, the other implies that it only applies to requests sent to the realm that does not contain a destination-host AVP.
> 
> I believe we have consensus to use the second definition.
> 
> There was also a proposal, made by me, to change the name of the report to something like "realm-routed-request" to be more accurate in defining what the scope of the overload report.  I no longer think this is necessary and am happy with the "realm" name for the report.
> 
> If we have agreement on the direction then I will identify the text that needs to be changed to remove the conflicting definitions of the report type.  I will send it to the list for review before incorporating it into the -04 version of the draft and closing the issue.
> 
> Please let me know if there are issues with this proposal.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Steve
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email