Re: [Dime] Call for WG adoption: draft-jones-diameter-group-signaling-01

Tina,

On Apr 13, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:

> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 2:35 AM, "lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jouni, Tina and Mark,
> Merci, Lionel. Comments r in line.
>> 
>> I share the Jouni's point of view. If stateful proxies are required in the path, all messages related to the same sessions have to go through the same proxy.
> You are right. Implementations should ensure this. However in group signalling only one (req-resp pair) group signalling

I would still day.. "deployments should ensure this". This is a generic
issue.

>  message is exchanged between the client and the server. It can only take one of the session path between the client and the server. For server-initiated group signaling, implementations can still ensure "maintaining" the session path by 

If a specific deployment requires that a specific node is always on path
that must not be different then from whether the message exchange is 
initiated by the client or the server.

- Jouni

> indicating the follow up to happen at PER_SESSION level. The client initiated group signalling has no such provision in the current solution.
>> 
>> If an implementation allows relying on multiple stateful proxies to manage the same sessions, this implementation needs also to support a mechanism ensuring a consistent management of the session data contexts between proxies. But IMHO, this kind of implementation is and should remain out of scope of any Diameter protocol spec.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Lionel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
>> Envoyé : jeudi 12 avril 2012 11:03
>> À : Tina TSOU
>> Cc : dime@ietf.org; dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org; mark@azu.ca
>> Objet : Re: [Dime] Call for WG adoption: draft-jones-diameter-group-signaling-01
>> 
>> Tina,
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:41 AM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jouni and Mark,
>>> The problem statement is valid and the solution can work in basic scenarios. 
>>> 
>>> However the solution may have some limit in roaming scenario.
>>> 
>>> Consider a network having a WLAN AN (hosting a Diameter Client) requesting some 3G internet resources, visited network proxies and home network server as below:
>>> 
>>> Client -------------- <Visited n/w proxy 1> ---------- {Home network server}
>>>       -------------- <Visited n/w proxy 2> ----------{Home network server}
>>> 
>>> The session path can be established through either of the visited n/w proxies. For all the messages of same session, client can ensure that the session path through stateful nodes is maintained. The visited n/w proxies would require that the session path be maintained for offline charging etc.
>>> In this scenario, if client uses group signalling method to terminate all sessions in a group using GSTR, only the proxy in the GSTR-GSTA path will be aware of session termination. Since there are no follow-up messages, there is no mechanism to let the other proxy know that the sessions are terminated.
>> 
>> How this differentiates from a generic issue where someone
>> puts a proxy on path that is supposed to stay on path and
>> at the same time allows by deployment options an alternative
>> path to take place? Like asking for trouble..
>> 
>> 
>>> This problem can be avoided in Server initiated group signalling cases (GRAR & GASR) as the PER_SESSION mode can be used for follow up exchanges.
>>> Thus the current solution has a limit if client uses group signalling method for session termination in roaming cases.
>> 
>> The problem could also be avoided by not doing such deployment
>> where this can happen.
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>>> 
>>> I volunteer to work together with Mark to find a solution for this case.
>>> 
>>> I'm NOT aware of any IPR in this area.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tina
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>> jouni korhonen
>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:20 PM
>>>> To: dime@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Subject: [Dime] Call for WG adoption: draft-jones-diameter-group-
>>>> signaling-01
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Folks,
>>>> 
>>>> During the Dime WG meeting in Paris we decided to adopt draft-jones-
>>>> diameter-group-signaling-01
>>>> "Diameter Group Signaling" as a working group I-D. The I-D is an input for
>>>> the charter mile stone 'Protocol extension for bulk and group signaling'.
>>>> 
>>>> This mail starts a one week verification for the adoption. If you have
>>>> strong concerns that the
>>>> draft-jones-diameter-group-signaling-01 is not appropriate as a _basis_
>>>> for the solution, then express your concerns on the mailing list by 8th
>>>> April.
>>>> 
>>>> - Jouni & Lionel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> DiME mailing list
>>>> DiME@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>> 