IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values

Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp> Wed, 26 January 2011 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029AC3A6932 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:27:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.192
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdjbHtrxkU2Z for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sd-22293.dedibox.fr (sd-22293.dedibox.fr [88.191.125.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0723A6843 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:27:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sd-22293.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226FD948E8; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:30:36 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sd-22293.dedibox.fr
Received: from sd-22293.dedibox.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sd-22293.dedibox.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIRfWDp30DKd; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:30:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [202.249.37.5] (morbier.koganei.wide.ad.jp [202.249.37.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sd-22293.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5334794119; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:30:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D3FBF82.4030506@nict.go.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:30:26 +0900
From: Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
References: <4D3F8796.1090100@nict.go.jp> <019f01cbbd1a$be861a10$3b924e30$@net>
In-Reply-To: <019f01cbbd1a$be861a10$3b924e30$@net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:27:56 -0000

Hi Glen,

> Actually, I think that the redundant things are the lists of values
> themselves.  They made sense in 3588, since that doc was actually requesting
> allocation of the values but should be replaced with references to the
> relevant IANA registry in bis.
I agree with regard to the values that are unchanged between 3588 & bis.

However, what about for example DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED which was
defined as 3xxx (protocol error) in 3588, but is now in range 5xxx
(permanent failure) in bis ?

Best regards,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email