Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations
Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com> Tue, 08 December 2009 14:03 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 E79753A67A7 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 NAteah4XL5sf for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail51.messagelabs.com (mail51.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB763A63D3 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:03 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-51.messagelabs.com!1260280972!29742733!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 3079 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2009 14:02:52 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-8.tower-51.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Dec 2009 14:02:52 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:02:52 -0500
From: Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:02:17 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations
Thread-Index: Acp34FZBOc20YK6hR4qJzLhYyLl5vQALWCYw
Message-ID: <4E0F60BAF2FA7C46BBB5474DF8A89BCD2DD48A12E3@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com>
References: <CE94EF0B-FF2A-4A36-ACEC-5A6B874ABA74@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE94EF0B-FF2A-4A36-ACEC-5A6B874ABA74@gmail.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
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:03:05 -0000
> Reading the Section 11.6 NAPTR Service Fields. It appears to me that > there is no IANA registry defined for these NAPTR service and protocol > fields. Not in RFC3588 and not for NAPTR in general (meaning RFC2915 > and RFC3403). Therefore, shouldn't this document create one as hinted > in Section 9 of RFC3403? > 3588bis did not change this section so it appears this is an IANA action that was missed from 3588. Can't we request that IANA add the registry now? I see no reason to wait for 3588bis if it contains no changes to the requested NAPTR registry. Regards Mark
- [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA con… jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA… Mark Jones