IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #1

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 21:56 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 382C01AD8DA for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:56:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] 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 Sdk4DgSCgFHk for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879281AC7EE for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB3LuGk1039254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:56:17 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3558_1386001910_529CB5F6_3558_6116_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3110E6@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:56:16 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <487F94B4-F695-42B7-887B-0EBCDC5FF0C2@nostrum.com>
References: <16E13E52-0DB9-4E72-964A-FE658536155B@gmail.com> <10629_1385971488_529C3F20_10629_5138_1_emlwd34vyt318xrd8i01xiee.1385971482719@email.android.com> <529CAA39.6050809@usdonovans.com> <C976FFBA-9E2F-463F-A099-7D53E5CCF234@gmail.com> <3558_1386001910_529CB5F6_3558_6116_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3110E6@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "ext lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 questions #1
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:56:25 -0000

On Dec 2, 2013, at 10:31 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:

> RFC5729 is another example. Maybe can we be more generic saying that enhanced routing decisions can be performed at the application level based on specific info e.g. NAI and add some examples.

+1. We don't need to be exhaustive.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email