IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 05 May 2016 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 870D512D65A; Thu, 5 May 2016 06:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 PsFYG3o30S7m; Thu, 5 May 2016 06:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0765012D61A; Thu, 5 May 2016 06:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA14BE38; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:21:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0LNl_Shd8Ui; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:21:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D43F6BE32; Thu, 5 May 2016 14:21:17 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1462454478; bh=F1yJECuv9jHgv+Wkmvq/dVuoCUx7C0/o0/Cs5WIMo30=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Z4hycu3uZfUppctD27sG3m5MZr1n+fPZTiLbPgGixLPNQeAy/iV5jbWEmF9PLFn4h h/5yxSRw/GJA3Mj/0/93crfCyhbFlCo9Sggu+X7E5vJDcx8TsPaAIPl7I7jpJLEwD6 iKfzUBIAET+1MwQhj0MSTQ0FcyS4/XjbuTK1Q3Nc=
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <20160503213139.8362.8871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8354_1462318968_57293778_8354_15408_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E01E4C8AE@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <572A1C14.5020907@usdonovans.com> <74A5239A-329E-4F82-9FBF-497C9D906E89@cooperw.in> <572A4520.5090101@cs.tcd.ie> <90C95598-F68D-4F94-8AE3-FAFF403F560E@cooperw.in> <572AFD9D.7010909@cs.tcd.ie> <CF2919CA-DE13-44C1-8430-DD5B8D8DB252@cooperw.in>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <572B48D2.6090801@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 14:21:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CF2919CA-DE13-44C1-8430-DD5B8D8DB252@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms050308090905020009010302"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/LDMo-GAxvPGldjwUpFtWQDWbkkQ>
Cc: "dime-chairs@ietf.org" <dime-chairs@ietf.org>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-drmp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-drmp-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 05 May 2016 13:22:11 -0000


On 05/05/16 14:19, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I think the gap is in Section 5, where it should be noted that in
> order for priority information to be reliably usable in the way that
> use cases 5.1 and 5.2 call for, the Diameter nodes sending and
> consuming it must have pre-established trust relationships of the
> sort described in Section 11.

Sounds reasonable to me. Authors?

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email