Re: [Dime] draft reply LS to 3GPP SA5 on RFC 4006..

[Jouni <[e-mail]>]

Everybody happy with the text?

- Jouni


> On 16 Sep 2016, at 13:47, jouni korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I updated the draft LS based on the input. See below and comment. 
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The IETF DIME WG thanks the 3GPP SA5 WG for their LS and query regarding the
> IETF RFC 4006 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1470/).
> 
> The IETF DIME WG has discussed both options raised in the LS from 3GPP SA5:
> 1) Is IETF RFC 4006 planned to be updated in order to rely on IETF RFC 6733
>    as the new Diameter Base protocol?
> 2) If not, are there any recommendations from IETF on how to address the
>    implicit reference to IETF RFC 3588 as Diameter Base Protocol for 3GPP
>    SA5 Diameter Online charging through use of IETF RFC 4006?   
> 
> and the decision was made to update of the IETF RFC 4006 as per the 
> option 1). The aim of this update is to align the Diameter Credit-Control
> application specification with the IETF RFC 6733, fix existing known issues
> in the current specification and comply with the recommendations given in
> the IETF RFC 7423 on the design of Diameter application. The time line for
> the completion of the RFC 4006 update is set to November 2017.
> 
> As a reminder, the IETF RFC 6733 does not define a new Diameter base protocol
> but is a new version of the specification defining the Diameter base protocol.
> The IETF RFC 3588 is obsoleted by the IETF RFC 6733, as defined in the IETF
> RFC 2223:
> 
>    Obsoleted-by
> 
>       To be used to refer to the newer document(s) that replaces the
>       older document.
> 
> In the present case, any document using the IETF RFC 3588 as reference for
> the Diameter base protocol should be updated to refer to the new IETF RFC
> 6733. Therefore, as a general guideline, the IETF DIME WG recommends 3GPP
> WGs to follow this recommendation in their specifications when applicable.
> The same recommendation will apply for the revision of the IETF RFC 4006
> when published by the IETF as for any new RFC obsoleting an old RFC.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Lionel and I have been drafting a reply LS to 3GPP SA5 (and CC CT3/CT4). This is the current draft. Comments are welcome. One question is (Lionel favours, I disagree ;) whether we should repeat the two questions 3GPP asked from us or assume they can look it up from the origial LS.
> 
> - Jouni & Lionel
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The IETF DIME WG thanks the 3GPP SA5 WG for their LS and query regarding the IETF RFC 4006 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1470/).
> 
> The IETF DIME WG has discussed both options raised in the LS from 3GPP SA5 and the decision was made to update of the IETF RFC 4006 (the option 1). The aim of this update is to align the Diameter Credit-Control application specification with the IETF RFC 6733, fix existing known issues in the current specification and comply with the recommendations given in the IETF RFC 7423 on the design of Diameter application. The time line for the completion of the RFC 4006 update is set to November 2017.
> 
> As a reminder, the IETF RFC 3588 does not define a new Diameter base protocol but is a new version of the specification defining the Diameter base protocol. The IETF RFC 3588 is obsoleted by the IETF RFC 6733, as defined in the IETF RFC 2223:
> 
>    Obsoleted-by
> 
>       To be used to refer to the newer document(s) that replaces the
>       older document.
> 
> In the present case, any document using the IETF RFC 3588 as reference for the Diameter base protocol should be updated to refer to the new IETF RFC 6733. Therefore, as a general guideline, the IETF DIME WG recommends 3GPP WGs to follow this recommendation in their specifications when applicable.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>