Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 02 June 2014 07:26 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098111A02AE for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 00:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tl_1Fwl1j_FJ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 00:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A2D1A02A7 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7323; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1401694003; x=1402903603; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j+fsSS7TJE7tZs1fNiXUznp8Er6/lv+Tvr+b4P7RoAo=; b=TdiH0tTdRbYGF9NfqR1LyQv83vOjc6P1hw7aaFy+OeGsBxR2k6lKt9tC +USYpCsWLjEs9MCmhgM143xjZ2jWZQEboluV8EtgTzTRlBNqyV/SjFBTM Cz1HkQwhsSrMKNUaiLfZU4EChl/qSNqqfVgt5ww6NilMVB4w45e3CBoO2 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqQEAGAmjFOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABZg1m7coc5AYEldIImAQEEAQEBLwEFNgoBEAshFggHCQMCAQIBDwYfEQYBDAEFAgEBEIgaAxENzX0NhgQTBIw8gSkLEQFLBQeEQAEDmAiBeIZthk2Fc4M6Oy+BCg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,955,1392163200"; d="scan'208";a="71723766"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2014 07:26:41 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.91] (ams-bclaise-89110.cisco.com [10.60.67.91]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s527QfRI009194; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:26:41 GMT
Message-ID: <538C2730.3040309@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:26:40 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lionel.morand@orange.com, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide@tools.ietf.org>
References: <52D9030B.3010402@cisco.com> <533BD276.7000401@cisco.com> <22885_1396976646_53442C06_22885_3037_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E54D5C4@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <53514D73.3090006@cisco.com> <53714817.8020100@cisco.com> <7656_1399962480_5371BB70_7656_3268_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E59FE4D@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <53722C6C.4000405@gmail.com> <21032_1400081845_53738DB5_21032_16360_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E5A4181@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <21032_1400081845_53738DB5_21032_16360_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E5A4181@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/9Q2lRR7mKNJt-sWkciZqM8RG1eI
Cc: dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 07:26:51 -0000
Hi Lionel, No more feedback from the mailing list, please post a new version with the text below. Regards, Benoit > Hi Benoit, > > Would you be happy with the following rewording? > > OLD: > > 4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags > > When reusing AVPs in a new application, the M-bit flag setting MUST > be re-evaluated for a new Diameter application and, if necessary, > even for every command within the application. In general, for AVPs > defined outside of the Diameter base protocol, the characteristics of > an AVP are tied to its role within a given application and the > commands used in this application. > > All other AVP flags (V-bit, P-bit, reserved bits) MUST remain > unchanged. > > NEW: > > 4.4.1. Setting of the AVP Flags > > When reusing existing AVPs in a new application, application designers > MUST specify the setting of the M-bit flag for a new Diameter application > and, if necessary, even for every command within the application. > In general, for AVPs defined outside of the Diameter base protocol, the > characteristics of an AVP are tied to its role within a given application > and the commands used in this application. > > All other AVP flags (V-bit, P-bit, reserved bits) MUST remain > unchanged. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mardi 13 mai 2014 16:30 > À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; Benoit Claise; draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc : dime mailing list > Objet : Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide > > > I think the change Lionel made is a good one. Diameter allows us, even > if not too much recommended, to change M-bits for existing AVP per > application. Emphasizing the "sanity check" is a good practise imho. > > - Jouni > > 5/13/2014 9:27 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com kirjoitti: >> Hi Benoit, >> >> The "MUST" is maybe not required. >> >> But this will cause interoperability issues if you just say "re-use AVP >> 1" without saying exactly how to set the M-bit. Some may decide to set >> the M-bit as initially defined, others may decide to change it. >> >> So the idea was to provide an absolute recommendation for designers and >> then a MUST/REQUIRED/SHALL for all the AVP flags: >> >> - The M-bit flag MUST be re-evaluated >> >> - Other AVP flags MUST remain unchanged. >> >> If not valid, no problem to revert the change. >> >> Regards, >> >> Lionel >> >> *De :*Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] >> *Envoyé :* mardi 13 mai 2014 00:16 >> *À :* MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN; >> draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org >> *Cc :* dime mailing list >> *Objet :* Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide >> >> Hi Lionel, >> >> Thanks for the new version 23. >> >> One question regarding the attached picture. >> >> >> What does it mean "MUST be re-evaluated" with a RFC 2119 keyword. >> RFC 2119 keywords are useful for interoperability, and I don't see why >> it's used here. >> >> Regards, Benoit. >> >> Hi Lionel, >> >> Thanks for the new version. >> See in line >> >> >> >> - When I read the document, it looked to me as a BCP. >> >> BCP definition from RFC 2026: >> >> 5. BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs >> >> >> >> The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to >> >> standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. >> >> Interestingly, the charter mentions: >> >> May 2012, Submit 'Diameter Application Design Guidelines' to the >> IESG for consideration as a BCP document >> >> */[LM] discussed in another email thread./* >> >> >> If you go to BCP, don't forget to update the abstract, and the >> writeup. >> >> Abstract: >> >> It is meant as a guidelines document and >> >> therefore as informative in nature. >> >> >> >> I would remove this sentence. Informative and BCP don't go along very well. >> >> >> >> Jouni, don't forget to update the writeup. >> >> >> - Editorial in section 5.7 >> OLD: >> >> Destination- Realm >> >> >> >> NEW: >> >> Destination-Realm >> >> */ /* >> >> Still there. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Section 5.9 >> >> Applications that do not understand these AVPs can discard >> >> them upon receipt. >> >> Generic comment: Each time there is a sentence like this one above, >> we should mention RFC 6733 as the reference. >> This document is not an extension/deviation to RFC 6733. >> >> */[LM] ok/* >> >> Still there. >> >> >> Regards, Benoit >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> DiME mailing list >> >> DiME@ietf.org <mailto:DiME@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > . >
- [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide Benoit Claise
- [Dime] Diameter Guidelines as BCP? (was: AD revie… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] Diameter Guidelines as BCP? Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Jouni
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise
- Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-g… Benoit Claise