Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt

["Victor Fajardo" <vfajardo at research.telcordia.com>]

Hi Mark,

ALL_REALM usage is reasonable. However, is there any other possible values
for 'usage' beyond all realm ? I'm trying to see if we can simplify things
and maybe not have a 'usage' value if we don't need to. Of course, I don't
mind having a 'usage' value if we really need it.

Regarding advertisement of this functionality, I agree the draft should
clarify this. 

Regards,
Victor


-----Original Message-----
From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Jones
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 4:39 AM
To: dime at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt

The use case I had in mind when I made the comment in the DIME session was a
wholesaler for AAA that was previously offering service for a given realm
but the AAA service is now being provided by a new wholesaler.

So the old wholesaler would use the redirect realm AVPs with:
   Redirect-Realm = <realm of new wholesaler>
   Redirect-Realm-Usage = ALL_REALM

The other question I had on this draft was how one advertises support for
the realm redirect functionality. I understand from Tom's presentation that
nothing too bad happens on the client if it does not support these AVPs but
the intended redirect did not happen either and the redirecting server is
unaware of the error. The way new functionality (i.e. beyond base
functionaltiy) is advertised in Diameter is through the use of application
ids in CER/CEA exchanges. If new applications require redirect realm
functionaltiy, I would expect the specifications for these new applications
to state this dependency and include a normative reference to the redirect
realm draft. I think the redirect realm draft should clarify this because
redirect realm is not base functionality.

Regards
Mark

________________________________________
From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [dime-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sebastien
Decugis [sdecugis at nict.go.jp]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:24 PM
To: Tom Taylor
Cc: dime at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt

Ok, I did not get that, sorry :) Just ignore my comment then.

Thanks,
Sebastien.

Tom Taylor a écrit :
> No difference, but didn't we say in the meeting we preferred not to
> overload Redirect-Host-Usage?
>
> Sebastien Decugis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just quickly going through the new draft revision, I did not find any
>> difference between Redirect-Host-Usage (RFC3588) and the new
>> Redirect-Realm-Usage being defined. I am just wondering if the content
>> is the same, if we cannot just re-use the Redirect-Host-Usage AVP?
>> Please let me know (and pardon me) if I did miss a subtle difference :)
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Sebastien.
>>
>>
>> Tom Taylor a écrit :
> ...
>
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime