Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Wed, 26 May 2010 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
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 074663A683E for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.74
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 YEIOAghEm3J4 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 18:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout08.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout08-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 986053A6819 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2010 18:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10767 invoked from network); 26 May 2010 01:14:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (111.84.97.212) by smtpout08.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.119) with ESMTP; 26 May 2010 01:14:32 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'jouni korhonen' <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
References: <10A80F70-2ED3-4A02-9711-7A5ED6C702D1@gmail.com> <0F3F1973-63CA-41E1-903A-35D3894D507D@gmail.com> <017301cafbce$09c10580$1d431080$@net> <1033CE87-B78F-4765-9F50-29FEDE6D03CE@gmail.com> <018301cafbee$4b648eb0$e22dac10$@net> <4871F3F3-EBF2-4233-8EDF-A688413CF128@gmail.com> <01d301cafc10$6bc79a40$4356cec0$@net> <8CD1C413-0FC9-44BB-AC7C-76785F874DB7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8CD1C413-0FC9-44BB-AC7C-76785F874DB7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 08:14:12 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <000001cafc70$c672cef0$53586cd0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acr8TOhjrqMYIUY4RzaGnG4zeT+newAI5Cog
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status
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: Wed, 26 May 2010 01:14:50 -0000

jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] writes:

> >> o Frank Xia's review (1/3) and  Glen's response -> ok
> >>   * I don't have a problem with an AVP occurrence table. Though, I
> >> would
> >>     generalize the table to just Req & Rep 'general purpose commands'
> >> that
> >>     are not actually tied to a specific command. Though such general
> >> purpose
> >>     commands might need text saying they behave like DER/DEA etc..
> >
> > Actually, the more I think about this idea, the less I like it: as you
> > imply, AVP occurrence tables actually belong in application specs,
> which
> > this is not.
> 
> Good point. In past we had few similar cases (general purpose AVPs) and
> if we had some recommendations on the use of the AVPs, then we used e.g.
> the Req & Rep approach.

OK, but it seems to me that only one (grouped) AVP is being defined here; a
table seems to be overkill...

> 
> - JOuni
> 
> 
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
>