[Dime] draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr open issue

Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com> Wed, 16 March 2011 02:19 UTC

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:21:01 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Message-id: <02b301cbe380$cb55d4b0$46298a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_mmq3bZ11QoUuo5iWy6E/1g)"
Subject: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr open issue
Precedence: list

Hi,
The open issue discussed in the IETF 79 beijing meeting is described as follows:
In some cases (e.g., in figure 2,3,4), the Diameter Server need to return MN's LMA address while in some other case 
(e.g.,the authorization of the MAG location query in figure 5), the Diameter Server needs not return MN's LMA address.

I think it will good to keep AAA procedure in all cases exactly the same and also it does not hurt to return the LMA address in all cases. 
 If the receiver does not need that information, it can just ignore the AVP containing LMA. So we have two proposals:
Proposal 1: Does not need to differentiate different success cases, return the same AVP containing LMA address.

Propsoal 2: Differentiate different success cases using status code and return the same AVP containing LMA address

Any opinions?

Regards!
-Qin

[Dime] draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr open issue Qin Wu