Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: New Issue: End to end identifier

From: David Mitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 15:35:51 -0500

At 11/2/2001 06:30 PM +0100, "Martin Julien (ECE)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>What I want to avoid, is things like Diameter peers, starting rejecting
>messages because of an e-2-e Id that would not be received in a perfect
>sequence. I prefer to play safe here on that aspect. I think the implementor
>should be left with its own e-2-e Id management problem.
>
>Martin

The implementor of the clients or the servers?

Or the operator of a mixed vendor network?

Dave.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 12:44:46 -0800

So one of the proposals was to simply add a sentence stating that uniqueness
of a given identifier was mandatory for n number of minutes. This appears
to provide the easiest, and least controversial solution.

Thoughts?

PatC

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 22:17:27 -0600

> to provide the easiest, and least controversial solution.

My vote is with this preposal.

-Dave