Re: [Dime] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 04:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 A3B8512D4F3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:13:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
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 65JA340nlFNK for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:13:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1697012D4ED for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1D4DP4R055309 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:13:26 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1550031207; bh=OPsCnW9Pe9u6TmERZZA/OlJhpmG66WrudE99riX7lLs=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=T3gXLwvR0k6ty+klr/BFEUsLs+8G1jYmGbLRNCkRKM1n4TyrnemGRHwPud4DeVjnP 9oEZHNFpku/p2mfpJiOk2WNLjqpNsvB8ZLcPmLhEpFMc6/agXuA40bc+B0LMJdwSPA HjEN1iqqpi/PjmQd1C6AP2p+VQjwUU9vHK1pXNeQ=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <71CF24E2-EA3D-4A02-9DFB-36403507829C@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_69D671D0-2DC7-497A-B583-EB362803167F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 22:13:23 -0600
In-Reply-To: <2032a50a-9e1e-d97f-114b-974dc97c3870@usdonovans.com>
Cc: dime@ietf.org
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
References: <154827019075.7547.9421622385944852216.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2032a50a-9e1e-d97f-114b-974dc97c3870@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/GBIJrXnqbR45HXO1XOVkDJzMowU>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 13 Feb 2019 04:13:30 -0000

Responding to one question below:

> On Feb 4, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
> 
>> Do you want to add this requirement as a "Note" on the IANA registry
>> itself?
> SRD> I don't understand the subtlety of the question.  Do you have
> suggested wording or can you explain what a "Note" on the IANA registry is?
> 

I think Benjamin asks if we want IANA to put a note at the beginning of the registry with the requirement that new report type registrations need to indicate if they support rate.  If the answer is yes, I think that can be handled with an email to IANA rather than requiring a change to the draft. (It’s explicitly stated in the IANA considerations, so they might do so anyway.)

Ben.