Re: [Dime] Limited flexibility with NAPTR queries

[Victor Fajardo <vfajardo at tari.toshiba.com>]

Hi Tolga,

> After having a quick look to the meeting minutes I saw that this issue
> was touched as well. So, does anybody have some proposal or are we going
> to rely on SLP?
>   

The current idea is to remove SLP and NAPTR from the base document to 
simplify the bis; the base doc will rely on basic DNS and redirects. If 
other SDOs may see some usefulness in SLP and others, one idea is that 
it maybe up to them to define/redefine its use. Any thoughts on this 
approach ?

regards,
victor


>     Thanks,
>     Tolga
>   
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo at tari.toshiba.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 11:33 AM
> > To: Asveren, Tolga
> > Cc: dime at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dime] Limited flexibility with NAPTR queries
> >
> > Hi Tolga,
> >
> >     
> > > Something, which is bothering me recently is the limited flexibility
> > >       
> > when using NAPTR service fields to locate Diameter servers. The
> >     
> current
>   
> > values placed in the registry allow to find *a* Diameter server in a
> >     
> given
>   
> > domain. It doesn't help much if one is looking for a server for a
> >     
> specific
>   
> > application in a given domain. This could work in environments where
> >     
> each
>   
> > domain (or better said each domain which envisions use of DNS to
> >     
> locate
>   
> > its servers) has a relay/redirect as the main contact point.
> >     
> > > My initial thoughts are:
> > > a) We can have registry entries for each Diameter application (could
> > >       
> be
>   
> > hard to manage ?)
> >     
> > > b) We can explain in the bis document that NAPTR query should
> > >       
> resolve to
>   
> > a relay/redirect for the domain, if the domain supports more than one
> > Diameter application.
> >     
> > I would prefer option (b) for simplicity though I'm concerned about
> > explain deployment considerations such as these in the base spec. It
> >     
> may
>   
> > open up the door for adding many more possible deployment scenarios
> > within the base spec. It maybe possible to add this in the guidelines
> > doc but I'm sure.
> >
> > regards,
> > victor
> >
> > regards,
> > victor
> >
> >
> >     
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > >    Thanks,
> > >    Tolga
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > DiME mailing list
> > > DiME at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
>
>
>   


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime