IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Wed, 26 January 2011 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
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 6EF553A6925 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:31:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MZ9XeQ5vNQGW for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 948223A6924 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 25579 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2011 05:34:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (110.168.105.250) by smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.37) with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2011 05:34:52 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Sebastien Decugis' <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
References: <4D3F8796.1090100@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4D3F8796.1090100@nict.go.jp>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:34:43 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <019f01cbbd1a$be861a10$3b924e30$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acu9AUH+IYaVfQViQ7ODCRnVVboP8gAGP47g
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 Result-Code values
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: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:31:56 -0000

Sebastien Decugis [mailto://sdecugis@nict.go.jp] writes:

> Hello,
> 
> I just compared the Result-Code values described in rfc3588bis-26
> section 7.1.x with existing IANA registry, and found several
> differences, which are currently not reflected in the IANA
> Considerations section -- I believe someone is already working on this
> section (although I lost track of whom) so I thought I would write down
> the differences I found to help in this work -- I hope this is not
> redundant.

Actually, I think that the redundant things are the lists of values
themselves.  They made sense in 3588, since that doc was actually requesting
allocation of the values but should be replaced with references to the
relevant IANA registry in bis.

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email