Re: [Dime] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 5/23/18 4:13 AM, Yuval Lifshitz wrote:
>
> §1.1:
>
> This document uses lowercase forms of RFC-2119-defined terms. Please 
> update this
> section to use the boilerplate from RFC 8174.
>
> /[yuval] we use them in lowercase, without their normative meaning. Is 
> this an issue?/
> /For example: "//
> a commercial agreement must exist between the
> //
> visited domain and the home domain" is just informational
> /

It's not the language use that's an issue. RFC 2119 has been updated, 
and since you use the lowercase terms, the update is relevant to your 
document. The fix is to simply replace your existing text with:

       The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
       NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
       "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
       described inBCP 14 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>  [RFC2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>] [RFC8174 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174>] when, and only when, they
       appear in all capitals, as shown here.


>
> §5.6.2:
>
> >  The credit-control
> >  client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
> >  authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication or the QoS-Final-
> >  Unit-Indication AVP and Validity-Time AVPs but no Granted-Service-
> >  Unit AVP.
>
> This has the same confusion as above regarding the application of logical
> combinations. The second half of the statement is of the form "A or B 
> and C
> but not D," which is pretty ambiguous. It's also a little unclear 
> whether the
> client receives a Credit-Control-Answer (with A or B and C but not D), 
> or just
> a Credit-Control-Answer of any description, full stop.
>
> /[yuval] how about this:/
> /"
> When the credit-control /
> client receives (either at session or service specific level) a
> //
> Final-Unit-Indication AVP or QoS-Final-
> //
> Unit-Indication AVP, together with Validity-Time AVP,
> /
> /
> but without Granted-Service-
> //
> Unit AVP, it immediately starts the graceful service termination
> /
>    without sending any message to the server."
> /

Sounds good to me. Thanks.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §8.65:
>
> >  The Redirect-Address-IPAddress AVP (AVP Code TBD14) is of type
> >  Address and defines the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the redirect server
> >  with which the end user is to be connected when the account cannot
> >  cover the service cost.
>
> This appears to be underspecified, unless I've missed some specification
> elsewhere regarding what the client is supposed to do with this IP 
> address.
> While the other redirection methods (HTTP, SIP) have relatively clear 
> means of
> contact (they indicate a protocol), the indication of only an IP 
> address with
> neither protocol nor port doesn't seem to provide enough information for a
> client to act on.  Please either flesh this out in this section, or 
> point to
> another document that indicates how this IP address is to be used.
>
> /[yuval] I think this is left unspecifid on purpose. There are many 
> ways to redirect IP addresses (e.g. different tunneling mechanism), 
> don't think we want to list them here?[yuval]/

If it's an open-ended set of behaviors (or a set of behaviors that is 
unrealistic to list), then I would expect the document to at least let 
implementors know that they're not going to find any further guidance in 
this document or other RFCs. Perhaps add something like: "The 
interpretation of Redirect-Address-IPAddress by the Diameter 
Credit-control Client is a matter of local policy."

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §12:
>
> When new documents obsolete an RFC that originally registered values 
> with IANA,
> I'm used to seeing that document also update the IANA registry so that the
> corresponding entries now point to the new document. You may consider 
> text that
> instructs IANA to update the existing RFC-4006-registered values so 
> that they
> point to this document instead of RFC 4006.
>
> /[yuval] don't know what the process here. but does it need to go into 
> the RFC?/

Typically, that's how we give instructions to IANA pertaining to 
document updates, yes. See 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-11 for an 
example.

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Appendix B:
>
> As a general comment for all of the examples: I'm surprised that none 
> of the
> examples have been updated to reflect the newly defined capabilities 
> in this
> document. For example, all the examples in this appendix use
> Final-Unit-Indication rather than QoS-Final-Unit-Indication. In 
> practice, to
> show maximally flexible and compatible examples, I would expect that the
> examples would include both AVPs. This applies to all of the "Extension"
> AVPs as well.
>
> /[yuval] the examples are more around the flow and less about the 
> actual content./
> /With respect to flow, there is no difference between the old and new 
> AVPs - and we wanted to minimize unnecessary changes. Only flow that 
> was modified was reflected in a new diagram at the end of section 5.6 
> ("zero GSU")/

While I don't agree with the rationale here, this is an editorial 
comment about a non-normative part of the document, so it's ultimately 
your decision.

/a