Re: [Dime] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-13: (with COMMENT)

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Martin, for spotting this. You're absolutely right and it's already 
fixed.

marco

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Freitag, 29. Januar 2021 01:00
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-13: 
(with COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email 
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory 
paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-group-signaling/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec 4.2.3

"The server responds with a  service-specific auth response and includes one 
or multiple Session- Group-Info AVP with the SESSION_GROUP_ALLOCATION_ACTION 
flag set and
   the Session-Group-Id AVP identifying the session group, to which the
   identified session is to be assigned.  With the same response  message, the
   server may send one or multiple Session-Group-Info AVPs with the
   SESSION_GROUP_ALLOCATION_ACTION flag cleared and the Session-Group-Id AVP
   identifying the session groups from which the identified session is to be
   removed."

s/may/MAY, to match similar text in 4.2.2. Much as in that section, it is a 
little subtle that the state can be totally inferred by the first requirement, 
and the second MAY requirement is purely advisory.