IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com> Wed, 03 May 2017 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ylifshitz@sandvine.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 B93D3129B42; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 OTUyTK0hQtL2; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51BC312948F; Wed, 3 May 2017 07:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from WTL-EXCHP-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::ac6b:cc1e:f2ff:93aa]) by WTL-EXCHP-3.sandvine.com ([fe80::3c39:d305:d721:f00a%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 3 May 2017 10:52:41 -0400
From: Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>
To: "Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay)" <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
CC: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>, "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org>, Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02
Thread-Index: AQHSw4y42phkq1IZA0GgKzP7Ht2Kp6Hh2F8AgAAPpYCAAPRJgP//zCLw
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 14:52:40 +0000
Message-ID: <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE4970082EC2@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com>
References: <FFB3377A-3F65-456E-8EFC-CBBA2B671566@gmail.com> <HE1PR0701MB2857B67205A4B3CD908191FCFC100@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497007F6E1@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705BA165@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <C43C255C7106314F8D13D03FA20CFE497007FABD@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <20170428113946.5161041.83399.10532@sandvine.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705C5971@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <670A9410-00F7-4883-B714-E0CA5E9A1234@deployingradius.com> <E8355113905631478EFF04F5AA706E98705C5B5A@wtl-exchp-1.sandvine.com> <3ABC7A8B-00DD-4032-85F0-D712A5517622@deployingradius.com> <HE1PR0701MB285719DD14A7786035A41917FC160@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB285719DD14A7786035A41917FC160@HE1PR0701MB2857.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.142.1]
x-c2processedorg: b2f06e69-072f-40ee-90c5-80a34e700794
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/EyPYvnVxXy-gbmUawpaHQ7rAzyA>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 May 2017 14:55:32 -0000

Hi All,
If 3GPP is already referencing RFC 4282, than, as Alan noted, the main compatibility issues is with using binary values in the unused bits of the ascii chars - which probably wasn't their intent anyway. Other compatibility issues (e.g. maximum length) are actually discussed inside the spec.
Think we can reference RFC 7542 for both the existing and the new AVP safely.

Yuval

-----Original Message-----
From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:21 PM
To: Alan DeKok; Dave Dolson
Cc: Yuval Lifshitz; jouni korhonen; dime@ietf.org list; draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

Hello all,

For the new AVP, no question: RFC 7542 should be used.
I have not the full overview of 3GPP specs used for reference to NAI, and based on:
- assuming the TS 23.003 (Numbering, addressing and identification) is an important spec to consider, the RFC 4282 is used
- RFC 6377 DBP also referring to RFC 4282
 
I would tend to agree on at least using RFC 4282 as the reference for the END_USER_NAI in Subscription-Id-Type for RFC4006bis.
Whether to directly refer to RFC7542, I cannot confirm whether this is acceptable or not.  

BR
Maryse

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] 
Sent: mercredi 3 mai 2017 00:47
To: Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>
Cc: Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshitz@sandvine.com>; Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR/Nozay) <maryse.gardella@nokia.com>; jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; dime@ietf.org list <dime@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] [ALU] WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-02

On May 2, 2017, at 5:51 PM, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Alan.
> Do I correctly hear you saying we should replace all references to RFC 2486 with RFC 7542?

  Yes.

  It's 2017.  Independent of RFC 7542, *inter-operable* implementations just have no business using non-UTF8 identifiers.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email