IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Sat, 29 January 2011 06:04 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 BBF463A696D for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:04:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 vvsqcDe2k0oH for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpauth23.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth23.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CAC4F3A6925 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 22:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31829 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2011 06:07:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (110.168.98.197) by smtpauth23.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.47) with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2011 06:07:49 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Sebastien Decugis' <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
References: <4D3F8796.1090100@nict.go.jp> <019f01cbbd1a$be861a10$3b924e30$@net> <4D3FBF82.4030506@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4D3FBF82.4030506@nict.go.jp>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 13:07:32 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <016101cbbf7a$d3b30030$7b190090$@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: Acu9IpXNwuO63fiDRJ+u7FS2uX9YPwCV4jkQ
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values
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: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 06:04:45 -0000

Sebastien Decugis [mailto://sdecugis@nict.go.jp]

> Hi Glen,
> 
> > Actually, I think that the redundant things are the lists of values
> > themselves.  They made sense in 3588, since that doc was actually
> requesting
> > allocation of the values but should be replaced with references to the
> > relevant IANA registry in bis.
> I agree with regard to the values that are unchanged between 3588 & bis.
> 
> However, what about for example DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED which was
> defined as 3xxx (protocol error) in 3588, but is now in range 5xxx
> (permanent failure) in bis ?

Good question.  I don't even remember discussing this, but it seems
inappropriate since it would change peer behavior...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email