Re: [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Fri, 04 July 2008 22:21 UTC
Return-Path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215F63A6847; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 3CFC63A6847 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_24=1]
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 2M3iLcH0wkBv for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D5A3F3A67D9 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Jul 2008 22:21:29 -0000
Received: from a91-154-105-144.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.3]) [91.154.105.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 05 Jul 2008 00:21:29 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/Hhd0sHBjH6ci6ovUrDBZlzYVFK5P1jS5zLcMLlz QaB1EFyC7R5rXP
Message-ID: <486EA262.4000901@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:21:22 +0300
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj" <jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com>
References: <2e6601c8de1d$3282dbca$300e7383@tcad.telia.se>
In-Reply-To: <2e6601c8de1d$3282dbca$300e7383@tcad.telia.se>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.54
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Jouni, Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > Our impression after previous discussion was rather clear that routing issues would not be part of rfc3588bis and splitting the concepts of draft-tsou into smaller issues was encouraged. At least i was told so. I would be happy, if we could have the content described in this draft as a part of the rfc3588bis. > Interesting. I thought that the content of "route pinning" would be separated from the remaining description. > Backwards compatibility issues are imho clear.. With existing apps and rfc3588 you just don't have quarantees. So you better only apply enhanced routing to newly defined applications that can be explicit on the routing behavior. > Having this to work only for new applications sounds OK although it raises the question on what todo with Diameter EAP, for example. Would you expect Diameter application designers to go for the new routing style for every new Diameter applications or only selectively (or even to define two application IDs -- one following the old style and another one for the new style). Consider, for example, the current Diameter MIPv6 HA<->AAAS work. > And what is wrong with short drafts? Here we just have one issue that we want to be explicit about. > Nothing wrong with short drafts. I was just wondering whether you have thought that the discussion would be too long for the RFC 3588bis document and therefore it was put into a separate draft. Ciao Hannes > Cheers, > Jouni > > > --- alkuperäinen viesti --- > Lähettäjä: "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> > Aihe: [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt > Päivämäärä: 4. heinäkuuta 2008 > Aika: 21:55:16 > > > I am a bit surprised about this document given the discussions we had in > the context of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03. My > impression was that we need to provide the text relevant to this aspect > within RFC 3588bis. In fact, I naively thought that this has already > been done... > > Without going into the details of the NAI decoration itself, which is > discussed already in RFC 4282 and RFC 5113, the real content is quite > short. > > The backwards compatibility considerations make me a bit nervous > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > 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
- [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj
- Re: [Dime] draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-00.txt Hannes Tschofenig