Hi Victor, I can agree though it is quite strange to have a Request/Answer messages protocols and to see a PANA-Notification-Request message in response to PANA-Auth-Request ;) The proposed modification doesn't change the principle of the error handling mechanism. But I think it could be seen more consistent. At least for me ;)
> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Victor Fajardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : jeudi 12 avril 2007 17:36 > À : MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: [Pana] Use of Error Request message > > Hi Lionel, > > I propose to limit the use of this specific mechanism to > the handling of errors due to PANA answer messages received > by the peer. In that specific case, it is actually the only > way for providing error notification to the originator of the > answer message (if needed). > > > > On the other hand, for the handling of PANA request > messages, it is easier to always rely on PANA answer messages > for providing error notification to the originator of the > request, as done e.g. with Diameter. > > The 'E' bit would be set in the answer message header in > order to distinguish error notification from "normal" answer > messages (some PANA answer messages being used just as ack messages). > > When the 'E' bit is set in answer message, the Result-Code > AVP would have to be present as well as the Failed-AVP AVP if needed. > > > > Any comment? > > > > The proposal should work though I'm not sure what the > additional benefit would be except maybe the savings of not > having to send the notification answer message in the latter > case. However, maybe such optimization is not so relevant > since error conditions are not the norm. I generally like the > current scheme (use error notification messages) because it > keeps things simple by centralizing error indications for all cases. > > As a side note, one minor suggestion for 5.8 is to include > small text explicitly terminating the request retransmission > procedure when error notification is received for a pending request. > > regards, > victor > > Lionel > > > > > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Alper Yegin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : jeudi 5 > >> avril 2007 10:06 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [Pana] Review > >> pana-pana-15a > >> > >> > >> PANA specification is reviewed based on the last round of > AD comments > >> (thanks Yoshi!). > >> > >> The spec is here: > >> > >> http://www.panasec.org/docs/editing/draft-ietf-pana-pana-15a.txt > >> > >> And it's diff with the version that predates last round of AD > >> comments > >> (-13): > >> > >> http://www.panasec.org/docs/editing/draft-ietf-pana-pana-15a-f > >> rom-3.diff.htm > >> l > >> > >> Please review the document and register your feedback by > the end of > >> April 12, Thursday. > >> > >> Upon collecting and resolving any issues, the document > will proceed > >> to IETF last call. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Alper > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pana mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pana mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pana mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
