IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?

Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca> Mon, 07 February 2011 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@azu.ca>
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 B35DE3A6E96 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:50:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 6DvsNTipPm0L for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DEB3A6E89 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iym1 with SMTP id 1so4851172iym.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.40.2 with SMTP id i2mr17691340ibe.95.1297108243242; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.152.203 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:50:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <015c01cbbf79$f7338d50$e59aa7f0$@net>
References: <3EB9A6A055A0A74D816B7BA703D4054101A8963DCF@ILHODMAIL1.corp.amdocs.com> <AANLkTin1r1hJsOusMyYcfo-0efNdsJVQNSp1j3o0E=by@mail.gmail.com> <015c01cbbf79$f7338d50$e59aa7f0$@net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 14:50:43 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3mM0xN3ffe_EGwyTUrw2cSD6_LcBuh4qFFC3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca>
To: dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter Group: Type?
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: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:50:39 -0000

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net> wrote:
> Mark Jones [mailto://mark@azu.ca] writes:
> Hi Erez,
>
> Will you be raising an issue on 3588bis so the authors can fix this bug?
>
> Maybe it’s just me, but I’m having a hard time finding a bug here (certainly
> not in the same category as the IANA mess): Diameter applications can define
> AVPs, so why not the flags for those AVPs, as well?

So does anyone know why this "feature" is permitted for unused AVP
flags but not for command flags?

Maybe it's just me (and the time I've spent explaining the M-bit
usage) but I really don't see a compelling need for the added
complexity of per-application AVP flags.  However, it is already in
RFC3588 and I assume we need a better reason than my foreboding to
remove it from 3588bis.

What do others think? Have any vendors/SDOs dared to use it yet?

Regards
Mark

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email