IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt

"Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net> Tue, 11 December 2007 08:00 UTC

Return-path: <dime-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J202k-0006Hs-0U; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:00:42 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J202i-0006BH-Rv for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:00:40 -0500
Received: from qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.24]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J202i-0006Kr-Ev for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:00:40 -0500
Received: from OMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.20]) by QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PKok1Y0010S2fkC0A00r00; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:00:45 +0000
Received: from gwzPC ([67.168.164.234]) by OMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id PL0i1Y00C53lGY30800000; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:00:44 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=OiuAnNsvuevEUCZblc4A:9 a=7uHIHe71qzlv5xY-H4pcawZg7XsA:4 a=_3nJN2eeWHAA:10
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net>
To: jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com, preeti.shandilya@aricent.com, tasveren@sonusnet.com
References: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7509625@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> <OFF1D96C66.DAFB08B8-ON652573AE.0016CC5A-652573AE.0017C06A@aricent.com> <59D7431DE2527D4CB0F1EFEDA5683ED3024F9CB8@SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se>
In-Reply-To: <59D7431DE2527D4CB0F1EFEDA5683ED3024F9CB8@SEHAN021MB.tcad.telia.se>
Subject: RE: [Dime] Review of draft-tsou-dime-base-routing-ext-03.txt
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:58:02 -0800
Message-ID: <00a701c83bcb$8f25acf0$ad7106d0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acg7rRqyLoXOrcABSj+r85aZOywqsQAE3qnwAAKfSfA=
Content-language: en-us
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: dime@ietf.org, gshafran@traffixsystems.com
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org

...

> I am not sure why there is a requirement for subsequent 
> session oriented message to traverse the same intermediary 
> hops which the initial message has traversed. 

What if some of the intermediates are stateful and e.g.
collect charging data by tracking the user session?

[gwz] 
I must admit that I cannot think of a single (real-life) scenario where this
kind of thing would be desirable (let alone required).  Would you mind
describing one in detail?
[/gwz]
 
...


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email