Re: [Dime] comments on draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Dime] comments on draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
- To: "Glen Zorn" <gwz at net-zen.net>, "Hannes Tschofenig" <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig at nsn.com>, "ext Sebastien Decugis" <sdecugis at nict.go.jp>, "Tina TSOU" <tena at huawei.com>
- Subject: Re: [Dime] comments on draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
- From: "Carlberg, Kenneth G." <KENNETH.G.CARLBERG at saic.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:58:10 -0400
- Cc: dime at ietf.org
- Delivered-to: dime at core3.amsl.com
- In-reply-to: <002801c9eda2$00db59b0$02920d10$ at net>
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
- List-help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <001101c9ebf2$d0af4450$720dccf0$ at net><4A35BC11.2060005 at nict.go.jp> <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501712480 at FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401790992 at 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><001b01c9ed95$fddd5260$f997f720$ at net><01ae01c9eda0$4053e500$0301a8c0 at nsnintra.net> <002801c9eda2$00db59b0$02920d10$ at net>
- Thread-index: AcntZz7HFZpRGsWkSsWlcCUGSDkCGQAHsB6QAAAz5jAAA7BmcAACcW+AAACC4iAAA3+lAA==
- Thread-topic: [Dime] comments on draft-tsou-dime-realm-based-redirect-00
> Glen Zorn writes:
>
> > Checking with those folks who deploy some of the extensions we are
> > working on isn't a bad idea (tm). This is useful input for
> our work.
>
> My point was that this kind of thing should not be a limiting factor.
> People often have no idea how much they needed something
> until they get it...
I'm inclined to agree with elements of both sides of the argument.
Sanity checks in terms of what is distinctly broken are appreciated
(even desired) by the operator community. But, I much rather prefer to
lean towards the presence of additional tools (particularly those
favored by vendors) and rely on the old adage of "letting the market
decide".
(speaking as one who doesn't have a horse in this particular race :-)
-ken
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.