IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Wed, 11 July 2012 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B98B21F857D for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJUKbqaKMrCB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAE721F84E1 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1080420ghb.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=4Xid2Ze2fNiIb0ZzS+NlAexmyAK8BPJrCZ7UZrcTj4w=; b=Z9+Y4bb7jBh4vLThoN19TmmDqo15inc87NDlJkRULUtqidGdprlfs4xCwUv0MLv+VZ f5DbDiFSaDkuHMPG+8DS+RtXlzFJNtYkeG9VbsTUS8FWdV2R1Z+45psipwES29ufieda IrT8NuDeqtORmZM3FKUdumXYqhkw0jRYKugReKPkLefR+TWh4MLN5/PiRvTvXfVASKt0 4dmfLotqN8CCWPjdP/KwVI0bkmAd9hhAofmZr+ckSctPBz/1S1DpsiP1GMS2shVe5d4G T37DQMLOYp/L8ajYLknqZxhnesYROaOw+0kWjPmKMz3IS6F9qAAPlWyiho15myC/PkJH oCGg==
Received: by 10.66.90.67 with SMTP id bu3mr80728065pab.47.1342002447124; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ppp-115-87-72-11.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.72.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rs4sm1475435pbc.0.2012.07.11.03.27.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <8802_1341992449_4FFD2E01_8802_151_3_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E02724A@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <4FFC405F.9030508@cisco.com> <15719_1341962331_4FFCB85B_15719_4173_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E027152@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4FFD2694.2040704@cisco.com> <1836CE1BA4F81F46921CA0334F7E427457FF4C62C1@HE113456.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <8802_1341992449_4FFD2E01_8802_151_3_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E02724A@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-C5/UOY3xkMjleoo/xWBq"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:27:23 +0700
Message-ID: <1342002443.14913.58.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 11 Jul 2012 10:26:58 -0000

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 07:40 +0000, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Benoit, it is true that there is in the RFC4005 an implicit reference
> to the RFC3588 when describing the new command (AAR/AAA). It could be
> useful to explicitly state that the definition of the new command
> follows the rules described in RFC3588(bis). 


Actually, the references to 3588bis are abundant, explicit and
normative...


> 
>  
> 
> About Dieter’s comment, the CCF specification of a command is clearly
> defined in RFC3588(bis) with an explicit reference to RFC5234 for
> further details, so I don’t think that it is needed to provide again
> the description in this specification and in any other diameter
> specification referencing the RFC3588(bis).


Indeed.

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email