Re: [Dime] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 09 March 2012 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 9BE8E21F8642; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:50:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.733
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 d0xCIcRdsvID; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E158421F84DF; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [64.101.72.114]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C31E84005B; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 09:02:07 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F5A26A8.9090004@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:50:00 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <CB7E9C7E.14820%jouni.korhonen@nsn.com> <4F58D4E9.2070905@stpeter.im> <4F59C07E.2090009@gmail.com> <056DAD37-4800-49B3-BA0B-2F86AF3C9139@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <056DAD37-4800-49B3-BA0B-2F86AF3C9139@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 08:25:29 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Peter Saint-Andre's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29: (withDISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:50:04 -0000

On 3/9/12 1:35 AM, jouni korhonen wrote:
> 
> On Mar 9, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
> 
>> On 3/8/2012 10:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 3/8/12 8:27 AM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> The text in recently submitted -30 Section 5.2 (
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-30#section-5.2) should
>>>> also address your DISCUSS.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer to a specific section.
>>>
>>> That change does address my primary concern, which was:
>>>
>>>   RFC 3588 used DNS SRV Proto values of 'tcp' and 'sctp' for the SRV
>>>   Service of 'diameter'. 3588bis seems to add two more Proto values:
>>>   'tls' and 'dtls'.  However, RFC 6335, which defines updated rules
>>>   for the ports and services registry, allows only TCP, UDP, SCTP,
>>>   and DCCP as transport protocols.
>>>
>>> My secondary concern was this:
>>>
>>>   Furthermore, this specification does not register the 'diameter'
>>>   SRV Service value in accordance with RFC 6335. Because these values
>>>   were not defined or registered by draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr, I
>>>   think they need to be defined here.
>>>
>>> Please see Section 8.1 of RFC 6335 for the registration procedure:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335#section-8.1
>>>
>>> I think you can add this quite easily in a revised I-D before the
>>> deadline on Monday, or your AD can add an RFC Editor note.
>>
>> OK, what to do about the port number, etc.?  Jouni, since you
>> volunteered that we would do this, how about writing the section?
> 
> That's ok.

Thanks, Jouni. I think it should be easy, because RFC 6335 asks for:

      Service Name (REQUIRED)
      Transport Protocol(s) (REQUIRED)
      Assignee (REQUIRED)
      Contact (REQUIRED)
      Description (REQUIRED)
      Reference (REQUIRED)
      Port Number (OPTIONAL)
      Service Code (REQUIRED for DCCP only)
      Known Unauthorized Uses (OPTIONAL)
      Assignment Notes (OPTIONAL)