IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05: (withDISCUSS)

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Wed, 30 November 2011 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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 C621B21F8B51 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:02:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kPEnXCrM3xQ7 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.eukhosting.net [92.48.97.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA51921F8AB9 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:02:57 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=g11.org.uk; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=rr73sgnfRx0wr4CeL0jVLeCwD0RFLaUJA8SkEZFkM7gXs/B/cQIT3gUrzgiS6tsfCYML16su7bylEWCUZCn87/XiDXorW5koMjyB/1YOX01Jtm2uCIAOp9c7omp7e160;
Received: from c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:63671 helo=miro-2.private) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) id 1RVmcW-0004JG-Gg; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:02:52 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0405AD5C19@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:02:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B4A8E55-416C-49C8-BD40-3186BBC20E73@g11.org.uk>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0405AD5C19@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05: (withDISCUSS)
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: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:02:58 -0000

Dan,

are we awaiting any further reviews, or does Robert's DISCUSS culminate the reviews/comments from the IESG.

-ken


On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> Document editors and shepherd, 
> 
> Please address the issues raised by Robert Sparks in his DISCUSS. 
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:45 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05: (withDISCUSS)
> 
> Robert Sparks has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The first paragraph of the Security Considerations section is unclear. It appears to instruct elements (not clear which elements) to ignore integrity protected values. Does it mean integrity protected values that fail integrity check? It indicates that protocol specific error messages should be sent when these values are ignored - which protocol(s)?  Is the paragraph trying to say something more than "local policy can override the policy requested by protocol messages"? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email