Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:39:40 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter
	Author(s)       : Tina Tsou
                          Ruibing Hao
                          Tom Taylor
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-05.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-07-15

Abstract:
   The Diameter protocol allows a Diameter redirect agent to specify one
   or more individual hosts to which a Diameter message may be
   redirected by an upstream Diameter node.  However, in some
   circumstances an operator may wish to redirect messages to an
   alternate domain without specifying individual hosts.  This document
   specifies a mechanism by which this can be achieved.  New
   applications may incorporate this capability by reference to the
   present document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-05

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:43:13 -0400

The document has been updated according to the proposals I made last 
week, but I'm not sure I've gotten it right. Restricting redirection to 
servers meant fairly extensive changes. I think the issue is worth 
discussing in the meeting, and I'd be quite happy to roll back to using 
redirect servers if the consensus favours that.

It occurred to me that redirection need not necessarily disrupt existing 
sessions. It could just be applied to initial messages of a session. I 
added text that allowed an application incorporating realm-based 
redirection to specify which way to go.

I'm not tremendously happy with the following provision, added in 
response to a point raised by a reviewer:

o  If the request contains a Destination-Host AVP, the server MUST
    set the 'E' bit in the answer and set the Result-Code AVP to
    DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER.

This seems sub-optimal, since it doesn't allow the server to indicate 
that the whole realm is out of bounds.

Clearly this is going to need another WGLC because of the extent of the 
changes I've made. Could we have 15 minutes, or at least ten, to discuss 
issues with the draft at the meeting before we go any further?

Tom Taylor

>     applications may incorporate this capability by reference to the
...

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:45:59 +0300

Tom,

10-15mins is definitely OK. I'd like to get the remaining issues
etc sorted out during Vancouver meeting. 

- Jouni

On Jul 16, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:

> The document has been updated according to the proposals I made last week, but I'm not sure I've gotten it right. Restricting redirection to servers meant fairly extensive changes. I think the issue is worth discussing in the meeting, and I'd be quite happy to roll back to using redirect servers if the consensus favours that.
> 
> It occurred to me that redirection need not necessarily disrupt existing sessions. It could just be applied to initial messages of a session. I added text that allowed an application incorporating realm-based redirection to specify which way to go.
> 
> I'm not tremendously happy with the following provision, added in response to a point raised by a reviewer:
> 
> This seems sub-optimal, since it doesn't allow the server to indicate that the whole realm is out of bounds.
> 
> Clearly this is going to need another WGLC because of the extent of the changes I've made. Could we have 15 minutes, or at least ten, to discuss issues with the draft at the meeting before we go any further?
> 
> Tom Taylor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime