Re: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr

Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca> Mon, 10 January 2011 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@azu.ca>
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 DAF593A63D2 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:44:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 IwyUhKyGOlLo for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081E93A63CB for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so4504975qwi.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:46:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.85.207 with SMTP id p15mr2889001qcl.167.1294692403073; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:46:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.219.197 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:46:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <002701cbaf12$43eabb00$cbc03100$@net>
References: <20110106191502.10151.87573.idtracker@localhost> <AANLkTi=3TduoqU2Ufcp=diAE=BwvX1KutNQXmX5r5aRa@mail.gmail.com> <EB0843F7-A291-439C-8F20-1F6993576B07@gmail.com> <002701cbaf12$43eabb00$cbc03100$@net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:46:43 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimbsjx=4qptHoYUf3Hkvb1q19NiKbj4VaToSB8B@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr
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, 10 Jan 2011 20:44:31 -0000

Hi Glen,

(Typo in my previous email: s/IETF#76/IETF#77/. The URL was correct though.)

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:
> Shouldn't the title actually be something like "Diameter S-NAPTR Usage"?
>

I like that. Unless I hear objections, I'll pick it up in the next revision.

> Change the first page header to read
>
> Network Working Group                                           M. Jones
> Internet-Draft                                                  Bridgewater
> Systems
>
> instead of
>
> Diameter Maintenance and                                        M. Jones
> Extensions (DIME)                                               Bridgewater
> Systems
>

Agreed.

> The abbreviated title ("dime-extended-naptr") is just silly (and not
> anything like an abbreviation).
>

It originally got that title because we were extending NAPTR until we
realized it was obsoleted by DDDS and SNAPTR should be used instead.
I'd prefer to keep the 'silly' title now since it will disappear when
it gets an RFC number and a rename at this stage might make it more
difficult to track the draft evolution.

>
> There is no Application Service Tag define for the Diameter Base Protocol in
> this draft (although there is in rfc388bis).

AFAIK, rfc3588bis only reserves a tag for "aaa" which means ANY
Diameter application.

> Since The Diameter Base
> protocol includes rudimentary accounting functionality it doesn't seem
> completely unreasonable that Diameter Base might be used as a stand-alone
> app.
>

Ok, I hadn't appreciated that stand-alone usage of Base. Looking at
section 7.1, it appears to be missing two entries: one for "aaa" and
one for "aaa+ap0". The "aaa" entry could be deleted if rfc3588bis is
published first.

Thanks
Mark

> Hope this helps.
>
>  ~gwz
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jouni
>> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 5:51 AM
>> To: dime@ietf.org
>> Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> We will rerun a short WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-04 since
>> there were some bigger restructuring on the document. The WGLC starts as
>> of today 8th Jan 2011 and ends 14th Jan 2011 23:59 CET+1. If you have
>> substantial technical comments, please post them to the list. Purely
>> editorial comments can be mailed directly to the authors. Silence will
>> be taken as acceptance.
>>
>> - Jouni (as a Dime co-chair)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>