Subject: [Dime] HUM regarding draft-tsou-dime-routing-problem-statement-00.txt

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:01:39 +0200

Hi all, 

we would like to hear your feedback regarding the document that is being
developed as part of the design team work on Diameter routing, see
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tsou-dime-routing-problem-statement-00.txt

Please let me us know whether you have objections or whether you are in
support of this document becoming a WG item.

Deadline: 19th Jan. 2009

Ciao
Hannes & Dave

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:34:40 +0200

--- as an individual

Hi all, 

There are three problem statements in the document 

A) Initial Network Selection
B) Path Maintenance
C) Routing By a Combination of Realm and Application

Item (A) has been subject to the work in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt. As such,
there is no good reason to describe it here again. 

>From the last meeting I could tell that most folks have not understood item
(C). It is a somewhat different problem, I believe (if I have understood
it). 
 
Item (B) is the one that is core to the discussion and should, IMHO, be the
only one described in the document.  There are two separate issues: 

 1) At what granularity do we do routing? 

  -- routing at the level of a realm
  -- routing at the level of a host 

 2) Who needs this? 

Regarding 1) Folks have expressed rather strong concerns that routing at the
level of a host could be problematic as it breaks a few Diameter mechanisms.
Routing at the level of a realm might be OK, as it seems, but the problem is
that currently Diameter deployments are not large enough that this is really
a problem. Additionally, the latter solution may not correctely reflect the
problem statement -- might need more meat. 

Regarding 2) It is not clear who actually wants this work. 3GPP and other
organizations are mentioned but they have not come to use officially. Why
would they actually come to use in the first place given that they have a
couple of things alone already. 

So, what can we do? 

There are again two parts to that answer: 

-- The problem statement document 

A) If the document is good enough and we find enough folks that support it
then we can go through the group with it and publish it as an informational
RFC. Review comments would be appreciated to make the document better. 

B) It can be published directly to the RFC Editor as an independent
submission. 

-- The solution

A) It depends on the solution we come up with -- it may or may not find
excitement in the group and could go through the group (for example as an
informational document, as an experimental document or so).

B) It was suggested to publish the document as an independent submission
again using vendor specific AVPs. 

C) A further solution is to let another organization do the work, if they
like it. 

I don't know what the best way is and I would certainly appreciate feedback.
We also plan to discuss this topic at the next design team conference call.
(Next week)

For myself I cannot spend too much time on this topic since we still have to
finish RFC3588bis. RFC3588bis is far more important for me. 

My 2 cents. 

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>Sent: 06 January, 2009 16:02
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [Dime] HUM 
>regardingdraft-tsou-dime-routing-problem-statement-00.txt
>
>Hi all, 
>
>we would like to hear your feedback regarding the document 
>that is being developed as part of the design team work on 
>Diameter routing, see 
>Please let me us know whether you have objections or whether 
>you are in support of this document becoming a WG item.
>
>Deadline: 19th Jan. 2009
>
>Ciao
>Hannes & Dave
>

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:55:48 -0800

> support of this document becoming a WG item.

I wasn't aware that even the design team had reached any consensus on this
document.  If I'm correct, why is it being taken to the WG?

----------------
Today in History
1927 U.S. Marines re-invade Nicaragua after ending a 13-year occupation

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:48:40 +0800

Dear all,
http://groups.google.com/group/diameter-routing/browse_thread/thread/80456ee8ef720a73

Wish you a prosperous and healthy New Year:D

B. R.
Tina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Glen Zorn 
  To: 'Hannes Tschofenig' 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 6:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [Dime] HUM regardingdraft-tsou-dime-routing-problem-statement-00.txt

  ----------------
  Today in History

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:15:22 +0200

The design team has not reached consensus on this document. 

Glen, as you have seen Tina suggested within the DT and also on the DIME
mailing list to ask the group whether it can be picked up as a WG item
(assuming that it serves as a starting point). 

Ciao
Hannes

>From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 07 January, 2009 00:56
>To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Dime] HUM regarding 
>draft-tsou-dime-routing-problem-statement-00.txt
>
>> we would like to hear your feedback regarding the document that is 
>> being developed as part of the design team work on Diameter routing, 
>> see
>> Please let me us know whether you have objections or whether you are 
>> in support of this document becoming a WG item.
>
>I wasn't aware that even the design team had reached any 
>consensus on this document.  If I'm correct, why is it being 
>taken to the WG?
>
>----------------
>Today in History