Re: [Dime] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Yuval Lifshitz <[e-mail]>]

 Will fix the first 3 issues. 
Regarding IANA, Lionel, didn't we contact them already?Do we still need to add that to the RFC?
Yuval
    On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, 5:37:56 p.m. GMT+3, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  On 5/23/18 4:13 AM, Yuval Lifshitz wrote:
  
 
    §1.1:
  
  This document uses lowercase forms of RFC-2119-defined terms. Please update this
  section to use the boilerplate from RFC 8174.
  
  [yuval] we use them in lowercase, without their normative meaning. Is this an issue?
  For example: " a commercial agreement must exist between the   visited domain and the home domain" is just informational      
 
 It's not the language use that's an issue. RFC 2119 has been updated, and since you use the lowercase terms, the update is relevant to your document. The fix is to simply replace your existing text with:
 
       The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
      "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
      described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
      appear in all capitals, as shown here. 
 
     
  §5.6.2:
  
  >  The credit-control
  >  client receives a Credit-Control-Answer or service specific
  >  authorization answer with the Final-Unit-Indication or the QoS-Final-
  >  Unit-Indication AVP and Validity-Time AVPs but no Granted-Service-
  >  Unit AVP.
  
  This has the same confusion as above regarding the application of logical
  combinations. The second half of the statement is of the form "A or B and C
  but not D," which is pretty ambiguous. It's also a little unclear whether the
  client receives a Credit-Control-Answer (with A or B and C but not D), or just
  a Credit-Control-Answer of any description, full stop.
  
  [yuval] how about this:
  " When the credit-control  client receives (either at session or service specific level) a   Final-Unit-Indication AVP or QoS-Final-  Unit-Indication AVP, together with Validity-Time AVP,   but without Granted-Service-  Unit AVP, it immediately starts the graceful service termination     without sending any message to the server."      
 
 Sounds good to me. Thanks.
 
 
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  §8.65:
  
  >  The Redirect-Address-IPAddress AVP (AVP Code TBD14) is of type
  >  Address and defines the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the redirect server
  >  with which the end user is to be connected when the account cannot
  >  cover the service cost.
  
  This appears to be underspecified, unless I've missed some specification
  elsewhere regarding what the client is supposed to do with this IP address.
  While the other redirection methods (HTTP, SIP) have relatively clear means of
  contact (they indicate a protocol), the indication of only an IP address with
  neither protocol nor port doesn't seem to provide enough information for a
  client to act on.  Please either flesh this out in this section, or point to
  another document that indicates how this IP address is to be used.
  
  [yuval] I think this is left unspecifid on purpose. There are many ways to redirect IP addresses (e.g. different tunneling  mechanism), don't think we want to list them here?[yuval]
      
 
 If it's an open-ended set of behaviors (or a set of behaviors that is unrealistic to list), then I would expect the document to at least let implementors know that they're not going to find any further guidance in this document or other RFCs. Perhaps add something like: "The interpretation of Redirect-Address-IPAddress by the Diameter Credit-control Client is a matter of local policy."
 
 
     
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  §12:
  
  When new documents obsolete an RFC that originally registered values with IANA,
  I'm used to seeing that document also update the IANA registry so that the
  corresponding entries now point to the new document. You may consider text that
  instructs IANA to update the existing RFC-4006-registered values so that they
  point to this document instead of RFC 4006.
  
  [yuval] don't know what the process here. but does it need to go into the RFC?
      
 
 Typically, that's how we give instructions to IANA pertaining to document updates, yes. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28#section-11 for an example.
 
 
     
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  Appendix B:
  
  As a general comment for all of the examples: I'm surprised that none of the
  examples have been updated to reflect the newly defined capabilities in this
  document. For example, all the examples in this appendix use
  Final-Unit-Indication rather than QoS-Final-Unit-Indication. In practice, to
  show maximally flexible and compatible examples, I would expect that the
  examples would include both AVPs. This applies to all of the "Extension"
  AVPs as well.
  
  [yuval] the examples are more around the flow and less about the actual content.
  With respect to flow, there is no difference between the old and new AVPs - and we wanted to minimize unnecessary changes. Only flow  that was modified was reflected in a new diagram at the end of section 5.6 ("zero GSU")     
 
 While I don't agree with the rationale here, this is an editorial comment about a non-normative part of the document, so it's ultimately your decision.
 
 /a
 _______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime