IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Ben's suggested change on 8, 1st paragraph

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 15 January 2015 15:13 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 10D811B2BFB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:13:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hIgQLOU5vGKy for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:13:00 -0800 (PST)
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 42F881B2BFD for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 07:12:59 -0800 (PST)
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 t0FFCwFC021552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:12:58 -0600 (CST) (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="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <54B7C350.4040906@usdonovans.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:12:58 -0600
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 443027578.038222-becff4e5abc98d729e916193871c5559
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <719B0FCB-A636-4A49-AA5E-51E7F5BC5A99@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681523F0BD@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <54B7C350.4040906@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/VVcvqAadiXY3ztlcCtMxzKZIoZ8>
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben's suggested change on 8, 1st paragraph
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: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:13:06 -0000

Here we have an example of the need for the term "transaction client" :-)

On a re-read, the text is technically correct, since it speaks of rejecting a Diameter request, vs rejecting some client protocol action. But I think puts too subtle a point on it for a reader who hasn't been involved in all our discussions. I think it would be helpful to point out that this does not apply if the throttling node is the originator of the request in the first place.

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
> 
> Clients can reject requests sent by servers.  I don't see the issue.
> 
> On 1/15/15 3:59 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
>> Ben wrote:
>> -- 8, 1st paragraph:
>>  
>> This is just for agents and servers, not clients, right? If so, "When a DOIC node..." is too broadly stated.
>>  
>> <Ulrich> I agree
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> 
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email