[Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana

Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com> Mon, 29 June 2009 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369E828C156 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfzSj69GsUN6 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bean.electric.net (bean.electric.net [72.35.23.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCDC28C1A5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1MLIcI-0001oq-Tm by bean.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>) id 1MLIcI-0001p0-U5 for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:58 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:58 -0700
Received: from [72.35.6.119] (helo=mail.bridgewatersystems.com) by bean.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>) id 1MLIcI-0001oq-Tm for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:58 -0700
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:17:58 -0400
From: Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:17:57 -0400
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana
Thread-Index: Acn4zMguFnarNKd4QT6lWGKyxVbNXQ==
Message-ID: <4E0F60BAF2FA7C46BBB5474DF8A89BCD022F034C95@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-IP: 72.35.6.119
X-Env-From: Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com
X-PolicySMART: 750505
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:17:42 -0000

I realize that this is past the review deadline but hope it is not too late for consideration. My comments on the Abstract and Introduction are editorial but the meat of it (the IANA considerations) looks fine to me.

Abstract:
---
Suggest rewording:
   RFC 3588 illustrates the conditions that
   lead to the need to define a new Diameter application or a new
   command code.  
To:
   RFC3588 illustrates the conditions which require the definition of 
   a new Diameter application or a new ommand.
---
Suggest rewording:
   This document aligns the extensibility rules of Diameter application
   with the Diameter commands offering ways to
To:
   This document aligns the extensibility rules for Diameter command codes 
   with those defined for Diameter application identifiers and offers a
   consistent way to 
===

1. Introduction

Suggest rewording:
   This is achieved by splitting the command code space into an IANA
   administered code space, and a vendors-specific code space with
   different rules of allocation as per [RFC5226].
To:
   This is achieved by splitting the command code space into an IETF
   code space, and a vendors-specific code space with different rules 
   of allocation as per [RFC5226].

The whole command code space is still under IANA administration, right?

---

Typo:
	s/[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]./[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]

---

Regards
Mark