[Dime] last review of RFC3588bis before the proto write-up - please comment

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

[in chair mode]

During the process of writing the Proto Write-up for draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-21.txt I made my last review to the document. I started to think few points that might still need some input from the WG.. sorry.

Purely editorial, could be done during AUTH48

 o Section 5.2 step 2. gives an impression that only NAPTR flag "s" is supported.
   However, this is not the case according to the referenced S-NAPTR RFC3958. We
   did "fix" this in one place i.e. examples in Appendix B. where "a" flags use
   is also illustrated. I would add a note regarding "a" flag to the Section 5.2. 

 o  Section 11.5 should explicitly mention the TLS/TCP port number here (before
    IANA actions marked as TBD like the rest of the document does).

 o (suggested by David L.) In Section 3 add a note that the message length is
   always a multiple of 4.

For the following I must to hear comments _before_ I proceed with the completion of the Proto Write-up:

 o RFC3588bis keeps version as 1 so a RFC3588 node does not really know if it is 
   connecting with another RFC3588 or RFC3588bis node, or vice versa. In Sections
   5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, and 7.2 we actually _change_ the existing command
   ABNFs that are more than just adding optional AVPs or sending less AVPs than
   before (for example adding *[AVP] to a request, which means the receiver may
   see AVPs that are beyond the ABNF it knows). According to the RFC3588bis
   Section 1.3.3 this could mean an allocation of a new command code, which again
   would require an allocation of a new application id for applications using the
   new command.. This would impact backwards compatibility with RFC3588.

   Can we expect then receiving errors like 5008 and 5009 when the other end is
   fully RFC3588 compliant and the other is RFC3588bis compliant? Is this unlikely
   to happen? Can a change to AVP multiplicity in ABNF considered such ABNF change
   that requires a new command code?


- Jouni