Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition?

From: "Igoe, Kevin M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:18:47 -0400

Glen Zorn & I have been having a sidebar discussion on the circularity

of the following pair of definitions in draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26.

Existing definitions:

   Diameter Peer

      If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with

      another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter

      Node.

  Transport Connection
 
      A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing
      directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a Peer-to-
      Peer Connection.

We propose the following change to the definition of Diameter Peer

that removes the circularity and emphasizes the need to verify the node

is properly authorized before accepting it as a peer and entering it
into 

the Peer list (as discussed in section 5.2). 

Proposed definition:

   Diameter Peer

                Two Diameter Nodes are Peers if and only if a properly

      authorized transport (TCP or SCTP) connection exists between

      them.

Comments/discussion appreciated.

Kevin M. Igoe   |   "Everyone is entitled to their own
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>   |    opinions, but not to their
own facts."
                |       - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 18:23:28 -0400

That looked good at first, but I think all you've done is add 
authorization to the existing definition. It's still circular. Or are 
you proposing to remove the definition of transport connection. I'd 
support that.

On 02/06/2011 8:18 AM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote:
> Glen Zorn&  I have been having a sidebar discussion on the circularity
>
> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>    |    opinions, but not to their
> own facts."
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime