Subject: [AAA-WG]: Issue 227: End to End Identifier

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 17:07:54 -0800

All,

Since it appears as if WG concensus is to change the text to state that
uniqueness is needed for a period of time, as opposed to incrementing by
one (1), how about the following text?

"Senders of request or answer messages MUST insert a unique identifier 
on each message. The identifier MUST remain locally unique for a period 
of at least 4 minutes."

Of course, if one wants to increase by one (1), the requirement above would
be achieved and the implementation would be in compliance with the spec 
(well, unless the access device handles more than 2^32 within 4 minutes.
Of course, I used the value of 4 minutes completely by chance. If folks
believe that another value would be better, please let me know.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Jeanette Heidenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:04:57 +0200 (EET)

I agree with this proposal, but I guess it implies that issue #154 needs
to be rejected, since that states that answer messages should contain a
copy of the End-to-End identifier of the corresponding request. 

I've been trying to understand the rationale for issue #154. It just
states that there is concensus on the issue. If the issue should not be
rejected, could someone please explain it to me? How can a host guarantee
the uniqueness of an identifier that it has not generated itself? And what
is the benefit of having both the Hop-by-Hop and End-to-End identifiers
behaving in the same way?

Also, the text in the paragraph qouted by Pat should be changed to
"Senders of request messages MUST insert...", if the issue is not
rejected. As the text reads now, there is an inconcistency in how
identifiers of answers should be handled.

Sorry for sidetracking the discussion a bit.

Jeanette

--- --- --- --- --- ---
Jeanette Heidenberg, MSc   
SW Designer           
OY L M Ericsson AB    
Telecom R&D, Turku    
Tel: +358 2 265 38 30
Fax: +358 2 265 37 37

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 09:27:25 -0800

Well, a portion of Issue is accepted, so I cannot just reject it, but 
agree that this issue superceeds 154. The fix you proposed below to the
text was in fact proposed in 154, and somehow I missed that change. Thanks
for bringing it up.

PatC