[Dime] Questions on 3588bis election text
Andrew Booth <abooth@pt.com> Thu, 04 October 2012 18:27 UTC
Return-Path: <abooth@pt.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00C821F867C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.381
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.436, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qESPqk09GzXg for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ottgw.pt.com (ottgw.pt.com [209.217.107.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3550621F8648 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from notes4.pt.com (notes4.corp.pt.com [10.81.15.15]) by ottgw.pt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384D042534 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 13:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Disclaimed: 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To:
References:
From: Andrew Booth <abooth@pt.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-ID: <OFE769E517.39026F3F-ON85257A8D.00656695-85257A8D.006566A0@pt.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:27:34 -0400
X-Mailer: Lotus Domino Web Server Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Notes Server on notes4/PTI(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 10/04/2012 02:27:34 PM, Serialize complete at 10/04/2012 02:27:34 PM, Itemize by Notes Server on notes4/PTI(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 10/04/2012 02:27:34 PM, Serialize by Router on notes4/PTI(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 10/04/2012 02:27:34 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Dime] Questions on 3588bis election text
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 04 Oct 2012 18:27:37 -0000
It seems to me that the election resolution text in section 5.6.4 of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-34.txt is not backward compatible with RFC3588, is this correct?
My understanding is that IF a diameter node that implements 3588 is communicating with one that implements 3588bis AND at least one of the Diameter IDs contains capital letters in the wrong places, then the two nodes could have different views on which node wins the election, possibly resulting in 0 or 2 connections between the nodes.
Could this lead to reconnect loops where both sides reconnect after Tc and then both continue to close the connection?
Am I misunderstanding something? Or is this not an issue for other reasons?
Thanks for any info,
Andrew
- [Dime] Questions on 3588bis election text Andrew Booth
- Re: [Dime] Questions on 3588bis election text Glen Zorn