IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2011 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
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 AFEC73A6814 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 fl7NyYdtYXv9 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BAD3A67F3 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so1992090bwz.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=8lbfQ6D4rnxaALpgoi3/afWjd1gPF2QMa1BrvTVCaDg=; b=ETFl7KlIviseF4nLlrCaxOb8HewpBojDpGk9vDCqKTJhq7kpDYQB0OI5RLUFgdzZS/ /xVzWh2HHTcpy5F0MLjJaPP57Z2/J1hwTZM+XWvd7qAlGyPF81GTujopA+UPRxdtbeyP LRkafve3vD/YoRnOsXRVYqk5GQkxtwovWAIXQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=GoGPzb3w4Cp++85Y2e0Le2yMbheTQkMickrEJUkf6c3psm3NuvcZZk9P3Ce0uLeInE YRHycI4d+RUW05uJAeie6qUucUESWy1+cCbOhDmSXV/UEi8G8z4hkNhJq+g03BofcFI/ MxoCwBFdHbZDIhzs6/5yYeCJqBYLpq0GYo/L4=
Received: by 10.204.81.224 with SMTP id y32mr396591bkk.152.1302159231620; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.255.129.20] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c11sm853772bkc.2.2011.04.06.23.53.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:53:50 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0402F6FF2E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:53:42 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6214EF5B-0199-4665-933B-48EFFC367701@gmail.com>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0402F6FF2E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:52:09 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the review.


On Apr 6, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I performed the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-06. The
> document is in good shape and I plan to send it to IETF Last Call in the
> next day. 
> 
> I have one minor comment and one question. These should be resolved
> together with other IETF LC comments: 
> 
> 1. The clarity of the text could be improved if a number of acronyms
> would be extended at the first occurrence: NAPTR, NAI, CER/CEA (and I
> may have missed a few)

Ok. We'll take care of this.

> 
> 2. idnits warns: 
> 
> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2915
>     (Obsoleted by RFC 3401, RFC 3402, RFC 3403, RFC 3404)
> 
> I think that this is OK, but please check again that I am right. 

We kept the reference to RFC2915, even if it is obsolete now, as that is what RFC3588 references to. However, I think it could be ok to give a reference to the most recent NAPTR RFC3403.

- Jouni


> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email