Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 05:36 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 E4CD321F86D1 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, 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 0Iy6-pJS+B2A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECE021F86D0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so3655839yhq.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:50 -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=zzGXsy6CDwTqV/C2nyXn2EPIXk+ghFuMUoOcIuc0pAE=; b=CVRmzMovC075V/HY0lO5MmTqf06cCtRsIdiHJCQdS7k/Dmv6YUeu/P5u5AWAnFm1Md Rg7juBf/7il4pY5XznmCIpxPCs4Hi6Y2HQIqzrv0PxvqR3ZLCItRzTF1no961KKb5uN2 PEPJlH95NinLHR/dJWxyN+Zxa5NMaf/8d0NC0wrKqWE3ew2ivXjL5RkcViH0UnTd16h/ yvDugmgbWQe8e3FZmE4fhoHAjfDfH8X20RKOh8hPkHgb5FqZRa3iN9aI+lpAphfz91WW PBa+gwIjJHVP9Jnsxked0pINnDPfZLo5nvNoHP8qFTVpw6b9EgK503xGUKAFN8xJiviC mBhg==
Received: by 10.50.194.194 with SMTP id hy2mr232412igc.56.1342157810142; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ppp-124-122-157-164.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.122.157.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k5sm787204igq.12.2012.07.12.22.36.47 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: lionel.morand@orange.com
In-Reply-To: <9766_1342022182_4FFDA226_9766_3407_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E0273AB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <4FFC405F.9030508@cisco.com> <4FFD41E7.5030502@cisco.com> <1342003558.14913.70.camel@gwz-laptop> <9766_1342022182_4FFDA226_9766_3407_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E0273AB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-duY912QVAPfshOcW4MNv"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:36:44 +0700
Message-ID: <1342157804.14913.102.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2
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, 13 Jul 2012 05:36:17 -0000

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:56 +0000, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> Indeed, it is old stuff!
> 
> Can we consider that this part of text is not relevant to RFC4005 (but
> to any Diameter application) and could be removed from this spec
> without impact? 


In that case, shouldn't it be added to 3588bis?


> I think that this point will be anyway covered by the dedicated draft
> on E2E security.


I'm not sure that it is necessarily specific to e2e security because I
can imagine cases in which requests and answers could reasonably have
asymmetrical security properties.  Also, could it happen with SCTP/DTLS?

...