Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2012 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.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 992C421F8577 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fhyuKd7LQ4Ku for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA6D21F8575 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so2802335obb.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=PBUE6W5a9PIRBDxcJwKHLIwgei0UC+9KCdDwdctRGIA=; b=T3OPPxsU13JPWUxnoMWDF4OBqnU1uw2xyTA9oYLFUoCSh1nJCQU6jub2JBVvKPN4LZ lRGj8uQ9zooj9yltiRdcej9cWJ3pirGSaG5VVxZyo6pF5XoYJkvWQqjJYZJSUvHeBj72 Nebmufv2lNMNdhEh3iMVPafuRuxsn7Bui8jzb4jFaDR3fvqq2Yf86jyoXTKL3jmXpUAX zRX3xcFv40L/oU+n6I2Fnl6dPznj5r3Et+AbNb2UKp3HRGe6K1eQsjj5+iNGwND4zxe6 LXM/WiDZQOwBwlXR8kM5A+sP+DmAI77k72ewQACx+J6Bc3dWjT+CskC1aG+T+fg9qY64 FEhA==
Received: by 10.50.57.168 with SMTP id j8mr5741480igq.46.1342067958280; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ppp-115-87-72-11.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.72.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id zu2sm14013680igb.0.2012.07.11.21.39.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: lionel.morand@orange.com
In-Reply-To: <9766_1342022182_4FFDA226_9766_3407_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E0273AB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <4FFC405F.9030508@cisco.com> <4FFD41E7.5030502@cisco.com> <1342003558.14913.70.camel@gwz-laptop> <9766_1342022182_4FFDA226_9766_3407_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E0273AB@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-zuJIM7VRYEzG895keSRH"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:39:13 +0700
Message-ID: <1342067953.14913.81.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Cc: Bernard <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt - part 2
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:38:47 -0000

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:56 +0000, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
> Indeed, it is old stuff!
> 
> Can we consider that this part of text is not relevant to RFC4005 (but
> to any Diameter application) and could be removed from this spec
> without impact? I think that this point will be anyway covered by the
> dedicated draft on E2E security.


I'm not at sure of that; I am pretty sure that there was a good reason
why the same security in both directions was specified for accounting
messages but I wasn't really part of those discussions.  Maybe Bernard
remembers?

...