Hi Tom,
Any plans on submitting and update to the doc ?
Regards,
Victor
-----Original Message-----
From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom
Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Mark Jones
Cc: dime at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-01.txt
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
_______________________________________________
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
