[Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-03

Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com> Wed, 11 August 2010 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <avi@bridgewatersystems.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 9E83F3A680C for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 CAf+SjRlJfL7 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail51.messagelabs.com (mail51.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295C23A67DA for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-51.messagelabs.com!1281558525!58264846!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 850 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2010 20:28:45 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-13.tower-51.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 11 Aug 2010 20:28:45 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:28:45 -0400
From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect@tools.ietf.org>, "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:28:43 -0400
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-03
Thread-Index: Acs5k8sSmWxQDaSsTlucWjLPA9Mktw==
Message-ID: <1FD363A7-3530-4F5F-8F17-0B0A861C33D4@bridgewatersystems.com>
References: <3052C5CA-B52F-4DB2-B04A-D32110134CAC@gmail.com> <02AE8F14-B61F-4EAF-8654-7B86F154A9C8@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <02AE8F14-B61F-4EAF-8654-7B86F154A9C8@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: f069778a-5a3c-4a57-aa01-0f5f3f2623e3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FD363A735304F5F8F170B0A861C33D4bridgewatersystemscom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-03
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: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:28:11 -0000

Hi,

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.





On 02-08-2010, at 10:11 , Tina TSOU wrote:

Hi Avi, would u like to review it? 3 reviews at least are requested. Wish u in purple:)

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html
/div>

Begin forwarded message:

From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com<mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com>>
Date: August 2, 2010 12:26:00 PM GMT+02:00
To: dime@ietf.org<mailto:dime@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: WGLC starting for draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect

A two weeks WGLC for Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter (draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-03) starts as of today 2-Aug-2010 and ends on Monday 16-Aug-2010 23:59 (CEST+1).

We _require_ at least three reviews from people who are not authors of the document. In case of an inadequate review success, we'll just keep the document in the WG and go for another WGLC later (that will again need a new set of three reviews ;). So lobby people to review!

- Jouni & Lionel


Avi Lior
avi@bridgewatersystems.com<mailto:avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
office: +1 613-591-9104x6417
    cell: +1 613-796-4183