IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue#29 proposed conclusion

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Mon, 17 March 2014 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 66ADB1A02F2 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.8
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 YxXaP1D6w7mL for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9B11A01D5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [137.254.4.59] (port=20863 helo=SDmac.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WPblT-00069C-UZ for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:55:56 -0700
Message-ID: <5327372B.1040600@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:55:55 -0500
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3B73@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <32C8E469-48AE-4336-AF92-F6EB2B12EDA4@nostrum.com> <530BA310.4090100@usdonovans.com> <8BE5229D-E276-4084-B6EB-DBF89817E02F@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BE5229D-E276-4084-B6EB-DBF89817E02F@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090009090009020104010307"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/cuNl4qVDlr9p_ZOffLRFjoOfePg
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#29 proposed conclusion
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: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:56:06 -0000

All,

I believe we have consensus on this ticket.

I had put the following into my issue status document:

Agreed – Removed OC-Sequence-Number from OC-Supported-Features AVP.

Agreed – The scope of an OC-Supported-Features AVP is a single transaction.

Agreed – Diameter nodes that support DOIC must include the
OC-Supported-Features AVP in all requests.


I believe that this translates into the text changes outlined below.  If
we have agreement on the text below we can close the issue and I'll
update the text in the -02 draft accordingly.

Regards,

Steve

-----

Section 4.1:

Remove < OC-Sequence-Number >  from OC-Supported-Features syntax
description.

Remove paragraph 3 that starts "OC-Sequence-Number AVP is used..."

Section 4.4, Paragraph 1:

Remove reference to section 4.1.

Section 5.3.1, Paragraph 1:

Change:

It is RECOMMENDED that the
   request message initiating endpoint includes the capability
   announcement into every request regardless it has had prior message
   exchanges with the give remote endpoint. In a case of a Diameter
   session maintaining application, sending the OC-Supported-Features
   AVP in every message is not really necessary after the initial
   capability announcement or until there is a change in supported
   features. To: The lifetime of a capability announcement is limited to
a single transaction. As a result, the reacting node MUST include the
capability announcement in all request messages.









On 2/24/14 5:02 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree.
>>
>> I also think that we agreed that the lifetime of the OC-Supported-Features AVP is a single transaction and that the OC-Supported-Features AVP must be included in all requests originated by a Diameter node supporting DOIC.
> +1, and my previous agreement was based on that assumption.
>
>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 2/20/14 4:31 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> I concur with removing the sequence number from OC-Supported-Features.
>>>
>>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email