Subject: [Dime] DIME Rechartering (Update)

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:13:19 +0300

Based on the feedback I have updated the text. 
 <<dime-recharter.pdf>>

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:34:30 +0700

Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm still not getting this "Submit X as a WG work
item" & "Submit X to the IESG" stuff.  At very best it is redundant; at
worst it introduces circular dependencies into the charter.  What if 'X' is
not approved by as a work item?  It can hardly be submitted for publication,
so another milestone update?  Just seems more than a little silly to me.

~ gwz

Half a loaf is better than no loafing at all.

  --T-Bone Slim

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:49:55 +0200

It is not redundant. One marks that an individual submission
draft-author-dime-whatever is good enough to become
draft-ietf-dime-whatever-00.txt (WG work item) and the second signal
that after the last WGLC was completed the WG agreed that
draft-ietf-dime-whatever-xy is now ready to be submitted to the IESG. 
 
Dan

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Glen Zorn
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:35 PM
	To: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [Dime] DIME Rechartering (Update)

	Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm still not getting this "Submit X
as a WG work item" & "Submit X to the IESG" stuff.  At very best it is
redundant; at worst it introduces circular dependencies into the
charter.  What if 'X' is not approved by as a work item?  It can hardly
be submitted for publication, so another milestone update?  Just seems
more than a little silly to me...

	~ gwz

	  --T-Bone Slim

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:53:29 +0700

It is not redundant. One marks that an individual submission
draft-author-dime-whatever is good enough to become
draft-ietf-dime-whatever-00.txt (WG work item) and the second signal that
after the last WGLC was completed the WG agreed that
draft-ietf-dime-whatever-xy is now ready to be submitted to the IESG. 

I see.  Silly me, I had thought that the latter implied the former.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:52:01 +0200

It does. But they are still two distinct milestones, separated in time
by months, and each requiring WG consensus. 
 
Dan

	From: Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:53 PM
	To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Dime] DIME Rechartering (Update)

	I see.  Silly me, I had thought that the latter implied the
former...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:46:39 +0700

Looks pretty much OK, I guess, though I'm not sure why the adoption of the
Capabilities Update draft as a WG item is put off until July.

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:54:48 +0300

It takes some time for the rechartering to be finished typically. The
IESG is involved etc. 
Then, it will be July already ...

	From: ext Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 04 June, 2009 11:47
	To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Dime] DIME Rechartering (Update)

	Looks pretty much OK, I guess, though I'm not sure why the
adoption of the Capabilities Update draft as a WG item is put off until
July...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:04:13 +0700

Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Then, it will be July already ...

Sure, but the problem is that the cut-off for initial version approval for
new WG docs is 29 June, so that means that there will be no WG doc until
after the Stockholm meeting.  It is a soft deadline but nevertheless...

~gwz

Play assigns meaning to human activity--work erases it.
  -- P.L. Wilson

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:56:50 +0800

Could the redirect at realm level be included?

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

On Jun 3, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:

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

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:05:36 +0300

Could you send the link to the draft around? 

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tina
TSOU
Sent: 05 June, 2009 11:57
To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] DIME Rechartering (Update)

https://w ww.ietf.

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:55:36 +0800

Hi Hannes,
It was in
http://groups.google.com/group/diameter-routing/browse_thread/thread/6750c39d5970aada?hl=en

3.  Use Cases
...
3.2.  Redirect Indication based on realm

    Consider an Operator; say Operator_A offering some service to
    Diameter client in its Realm; say Realm_A. For business/maintenance
    reasons, the operator wants to discontinue the service.  However the
    operator has asked another Operator; say Operator_B (serving  
Realm_B)
    to provide the service to the clients.  In this case, all the  
clients
    should be configured to contact Realm_B instead of Realm_A for the
    service.

    For smooth transition, agents may be employed in Realm_A which could
    answer with a redirect indication suggesting that the service
    requests may be sent to another realm; Realm_B in this case, so as  
to
    be served
...
4.  Problem Statements
...
4.3.  Redirect Indication based on realm

    This is the statement of the problem posed by the case presented in
    Section 3.2.

    1.  Existing Diameter message routing behaviour: Redirect indication
        is provided at host level.  It provides a list of servers that
        may be contacted for the request to be served.

    2.  Undesirable behaviour in the existing method: Redirect  
indication
        is not provided at the realm level.  There is no option to
        provide a (list of) realm(s) that may be contacted for the
        request to be served.

    3.  Desired behaviour: Redirect indication could be provided at the
        realm level also.  The indication may specify a (list of)
        realm(s) which could be contacted for the request to be served.

B. R.
Tina

On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf  
> Of Tina TSOU

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:31 +0800

Hi,
As requested by Hannes, here is the pointer of a separate I-D for it.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00.txt
You comments are welcome.

Hannes, would you ask the WG consensus now?

Have a nice weekend:)

B. R.
Tina

On Jun 9, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:

>    requests may be sent to another realm; Realm_B in this case, so  
> as to
>    be served
> ...
> 4.  Problem Statements
> ...
>> Behalf Of Tina TSOU