Subject: [AAA-WG]: Last Call: Issue 128: duplicate packet detection failure case

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:21:21 -0700

All,

The author of this issue claims that the Diameter protocol doesn't have a
good enough packet failure detection scheme, and proposes some radical
changes to the protocol.

I would really encourage folks to read the thread and respond with their
comments. In order for me to have the Diameter specs out asap, I need to
close these last remaining issues.

My take on this one is to reject it, but I could be wrong.

comments (both positive and negative)

PatC

---

From: "Fredrik Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:33:23 +0200

I don't like the idea of sending empty dummy packets, isn't it enough to use
the end-to-end identifier in the endpoints to detect duplicate packets. If
there are some duplicate packets on the intermediate nodes, then so be it,
it's just some extra traffic, not that much processing.

I'd say, keep it as it is.

/Fredrik

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
>Pat Calhoun
>Sent: den 30 augusti 2001 16:21
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [AAA-WG]: Last Call: Issue 128: duplicate packet detection
>failure case
>
>
>All,
>

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:40:11 -0500

I think the current protocol can adequately detect failures.  My vote is
to reject it.

-Dave

---

From: Tony Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:03:32 -0700

My comments are in line with David's and Fredrik's.

I also believe that we don't need the dummy packets. The End-to-End 
Identifier seems enough to me.

So I say reject it.

That's my two cents.

/Tony

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:06:38 -0700 (PDT)

I agree. The e-2-e identifier is sufficient. Let's not make this more
complicated than it needs to be.