[Dime] Strange paragraph in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-21
Matt Holdrege <holdrege@gmail.com> Fri, 18 July 2014 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <holdrege@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB2E1B2A45 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 8gYJzWhz1WLI for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD5201A008F for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j17so3969019oag.28 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EEbbaOp0Y70DqqErIivUt9pN1qmHm884X4Sb+LZl+UQ=; b=tzZ6Vv1kByHv+Uv+g4mKUpZxWHHrIkAibRRsEqQyWJCOcg1sYaLT5rll1/WXrgTWid 73396kaJFKU1M7kHTqvis5zNURbpxhIX0paZxgPSB5suPtDJdMDsthO5w5h0TzYjmWxN 1A/bDv13J7v/tn/Pi8QyDL5URknEk9v0aeu69RBrLyCn4UbDPMWL1M4v5AClxKL70rer B7Ds07QRCuhJ/HEYYrM97yZYrPh/H/lySvi6Hb+AoaG7CerjCrpuTpbqrmwj/ux2DPU+ HB2hdvs93QCU+UbZJkntukkQnar1WAGNvgRI0MkDpnKZBl5ZVZTvYVNJ+/Gmk58l5/d5 LjPA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.66.130 with SMTP id f2mr10190066obt.84.1405711559166; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.181.70 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:25:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFtys5=Lqf1R385YmPxRWMwS78dbD96x9CwZ3w0G9rn1xf7tTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Holdrege <holdrege@gmail.com>
To: dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1f61e243a3c04fe7cbabd"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/RxYVspShKOTZEt7Al66KjcANpo8
Subject: [Dime] Strange paragraph in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-21
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 19:26:01 -0000
Hi, Sorry to butt in with a minor nit, but I noticed that section 2.2 appears to have mutually exclusive statements. 1. Connections between Diameter peers SHOULD be protected by TLS. 2. The Diameter protocol MUST NOT be used without any security mechanism. I thought the text in RFC 3588 was ok, minus all the NAS bits? Or maybe say that the "Diameter protocol must not be used without inclusive or external transport layer security". Or some such text? -Matt
- [Dime] Strange paragraph in http://tools.ietf.org… Matt Holdrege
- Re: [Dime] Strange paragraph in http://tools.ietf… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Strange paragraph in http://tools.ietf… Matt Holdrege