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

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 04:16 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 394BA11E8114 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, 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 x+WkvUGho6BP for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F8611E810C for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so3451434ggn.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:17:06 -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=Atc653jUflTZkGhj5sn0T+O0fwg/TqXtYWrJ4jLaTvc=; b=P/TcWSErphmR/HtSjZeMbCt9QshUQXFnaBmqkaRrnAkzeQ+p7d66otc/NrFVwr1LqY wQ57NwfDRTgukhdCBHZG1V/gxIgL9+Ch2mnxU3rK9IKRRR9aM4VeBvidyOI9aiAThNt6 TsWdzKZhCQ87RJIvPkAihajGWGWbUrHBYYiK+Mx8u6bf7bQL1KMaskwH7kttgbMdPwXF E90xx8tKR6q2x57pGzLDkRwpLnyIGGi4pv2wneJ2x+MLmih7n9seReLGEFVnYp7tUMYA 583HxG3m5FsvVnyu62wF8zsemO1XcImW+ltYPumZgpgsoFmOQ3qDLgjTkzXEQ6Fxg8ou ocYQ==
Received: by 10.50.10.197 with SMTP id k5mr135649igb.39.1342153025843; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ppp-124-122-157-164.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.122.157.164]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nh8sm789088igc.1.2012.07.12.21.17.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FFF3D25.2060502@cisco.com>
References: <4FFC405F.9030508@cisco.com> <4FFD41E7.5030502@cisco.com> <1342003558.14913.70.camel@gwz-laptop> <4FFF3D25.2060502@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-6NntzepuipOZhFYWQiax"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:17:00 +0700
Message-ID: <1342153020.14913.89.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
Cc: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:16:33 -0000

On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 23:09 +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Glen, 
> 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 11:05 +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: 
> > 
> > > Dear all, Glen,
> > > 
> > > Two more points, part of the AD review (I needed a little bit of
> > > education before making those points, hence the part 2 in my
> > > review)
> > > 
> > > 1. the NASREQ application is specified in RFC4005bis, but IANA
> > > points to RFC3588bis
> > > See
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-45 
> > > with an entry for Application id= 1, for NASREQ, with the
> > > reference [RFC-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-33] 
> > > 
> > > I understand the history: RFC3588 introduced this application id
> > > value 1 in the IANA Considerations section. 
> > > However, RFC3588bis, which will obsolete RFC3588, doesn't mention
> > > this application id (obviously, because it was assigned already). 
> > > So don't you believe that we should correct this and have, in the
> > > IANA Considerations section of
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-09.txt , a
> > > message basically expressing:
> > > 
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-45  should contain
> > >              Application id= 1, for NASREQ, with the reference
> > > [RFC4005bis] 
> > 
> > 
> > Obviously, I don't agree.  The value was registered in RFC 3588, and
> > there is nothing to "correct" unless of course you insist, as does
> > at least one IESG member, that the IANA references always point to
> > the technical definition of the registered item (a position so
> > untenable as to be absurd).
> 
> So right now, "application id = 1" points to RFC 3588bis, which is
> neither the RFC that registered the value (RFC3588), nor the NASREQ
> specification (RFC4005bis), so the pointer to RFC 3588bis seems pretty
> useless to me.


I couldn't agree more.


> Anyway, I sent a private email to Michelle Cotton a few days ago (and
> I copied her again on this email thread).
> My advice is to simply follow the IANA guidance.


Actually, I'd like to see some guidance from the IESG; something that is
both consistent and completethat states the semantics of the IANA
reference field or, lacking that, a little less anal-retention WRT
positions which are clearly neither consistent nor complete on those
semantics.

...