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

[Tom Taylor <tom.taylor at rogers.com>]

I'll take the second choice you offer.

Mark Jones wrote:
> Hi Tom, 
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor at rogers.com] 
> > Sent: October 6, 2009 10:09 PM
> > To: Mark Jones
> > Cc: dime at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D 
> > Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt
> >
> > What I'm worried about is whether this implies every 
> > application out there has 
> > to be redefined to make use of this feature.
>
> That is indeed the implication. Alternatively, you define a new application id for the realm-based redirect functionality and it complements the existing applications, i.e. if you need NASREQ with realm-based redirect, the CER/CEA advertises the NASREQ Application Id and the Realm-based Redirect Application ID.
>
> Regards
> Mark
>
>
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > I was expecting a stronger statement on advertisement at 
> > the application level, e.g.
> > > "Because realm-based redirection is not part of base 
> > Diameter behaviour, support for realm-based redirection by 
> > the peers MUST be advertised at the application level."
> > > I don't see how the feature works reliably otherwise and 
> > punting the risk evaluation to the service provider seems 
> > inappropriate for a feature likely to used on 
> > inter-service-provider interfaces.
> > > Regards
> > > Mark