Re: [Dime] Issue #23 - Proposed resolution

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

Maria Cruz,

I'm open to other names, please make a suggestion if you don't want RRR.

One of the reasons for the ticket was that the draft itself is currently 
not consistent in describing this report.  In some places it describes 
it as a RRR and in other cases it describes it as a Realm.

Note that this is NOT what we discussed and agreed to in London, but I'm 
ok with leaving the decision on Realm reports to after -02 is published.

Regards,

Steve

On 3/26/14, 6:30 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome wrote:
>
> Steve, all,
>
> In my opinion RRR term is misleading.
>
> I think we need to come up with a name that clearly could 
> differentiate from "Realm".
>
> Then, my proposal is to do not modify that in draft.
>
> If later, finally we consider "all requests to realm" report, then we 
> would need to come up with a better terminology.
>
> Cheers
>
> /MCruz
>
> *From:*DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Steve Donovan
> *Sent:* martes, 25 de marzo de 2014 21:55
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Dime] Issue #23 - Proposed resolution
>
> All,
>
> Given that we do not have consensus on removing Realm-Routed-Request 
> reports, I propose that we resolve issue 23 by renaming what is called 
> Realm reports in the -01 draft to Realm-Routed-Reports in the -02 draft.
>
> I will update the issue with the text changes when I make them, but I 
> will do nothing but change the name and make the wording consistent in 
> that Realm-Routed-Reports apply to requests sent to the realm that do 
> not have a Destination-Host AVP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>