IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 285691A03CF for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3XzW_pd3C-W8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA8E1A01FE for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id z11so1537130lbi.36 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SVIKaMUqNL8HOhSq/lDwgMcz/UUXVTp+08f0f+S01fk=; b=wLIE2Dezg5jZLdRvQPkG6oeulsF7jOn7MRUP7p9DH8BFVWRDUo/sma4g8LeqIclu9B vKGmq6tNOy4eiHhLQhLfjszZWFovZ6tX/07dS/SeZLaKBT2VkjAl8mqh712XIw77u4pL q36Q8QuHNyv0A63T0oIWeBljSaOa5Fa7R2zWEDZWgvICoeQisO175gHrDvA0hTz6U9Mi 74r9NBgPClWUmJaGkavWq+l1qdnMx9uB7FAZRrrNNgsc37saa/hSP1iYrPG5y2Q/zxAw Dt4fblOgKWV+XbjZhAbhCuue7gsN0z4cjkfW21n5gLXjO4MWabWJfkm8wgVTzzRMVLD/ xEFQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.115.178 with SMTP id jp18mr14725443lab.23.1397842911507; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:701e:6163:130a:e2ff? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:701e:6163:130a:e2ff]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fa8sm28041949lbc.18.2014.04.18.10.41.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53514D73.3090006@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:41:47 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <46464E18-BB36-4875-813A-54589C2B1FCB@gmail.com>
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>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/CKinkhKIyhD0pXXkuQb8ORIBsno
Cc: dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide@tools.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: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:41:58 -0000

Ok. Will check the write-up.

- Jouni

On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:

> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email