Re: [Dime] draft-bertz-dime-rfc4006bis

Jouni Korhonen <> Fri, 17 June 2016 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F2D12D788 for <>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mq_rVSP_fEfl for <>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C3F612D779 for <>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h14so16724979pfe.1 for <>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rVTaC0L80NAdEoV5cM/TedjKWC5Pxq3ftlwZYfPx4Ug=; b=lj+tbPO4R5jfVSZ/7EvXScISWyuNx4djSln7LtGphEIC115IOI8R5K3hyTDohGZILH S6+Z0oFWosvglSW1B+6ptH9es9BczTzkIyFw3LWI+kbwKJuWeYywn0PHP6gpqREyJAti jUeNVY4pl8GkqA6j0cPe/klJHXUXZgfgVna/C/cmd+alg90jtuerDgDP31cmiceuoUY4 XV3HqFYIs2naYTVzL+M009xQ3Gv9XKojQGhIi+jWjP7ocCmw6Wg3pcdJis4VJa4EVtJv PGmNmji/il/k/ZBDglM7WGnEtH1AxhOI3Ll4L/01FB6GIoHl/8ketqsNQnPxhDK/AEhT 0tFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rVTaC0L80NAdEoV5cM/TedjKWC5Pxq3ftlwZYfPx4Ug=; b=DA6nG7cX2LvMZSw9wjhEeYpdWHuci+Bn1zH7bhXtf7sLSMm+wf8I3e0tKtKIyt38io EZjQrKyaWwradgtBCwD2XK3skB5j+OXFCszk91IEw9caoC2s6uoVowD2bMxRu8zFAFGP hB1UeabJi0k3rJkjrkyOeWsMg/2r7/SK/LMy6Skst7LCVgrm9xrdYAfNmBhb7GVPpZ5Y vrUkD8xUtTfkA+GK9PpxoBIS6RxGezH/NYMhGBEbcMIyBYmeCGfU/JbycFz40Xb8EZ59 yEQI/Yh1qRGWXW6dE0Jq+/Nz4BvC9JIKWQAIqYMD8H3R8vWXXs+YQF7p+QiZnhWytdP5 MDGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLV/DILDbocCY8b3Si7pHAXMc0WdiEgylvTj+3zqEJhy6FEEeHSIMS2Vcl+qcAF2g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z188mr3024778pfz.100.1466177952799; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id fl1sm69191977pab.43.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
References: <>
From: Jouni Korhonen <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:39:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-bertz-dime-rfc4006bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:39:15 -0000

Thanks for the "RFC4006bis" team for initiating the work. See inline

6/17/2016, 1:04 AM, Yuval Lifshitz kirjoitti:
> Dear group members,
> There are some more modification to RFC4006 that we would like to propose (also listed here: that probably require further discussion in the group:
> (1) Update the IPv6 reference

This is straight forward. Just make sure to reference to RFC4291bis work 
in 6MAN (draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis)

> (2) Update the 3GPP charging reference (currently point to rel5...). Here we may want to change that to point to a different doc altogether (3GPP TS 32.299), which is more relevant (and didn't exist at the time)

Here, someone really needs to check that changing the reference (TS and 
release) does not break anything. I would encourage you to come up with 
a short analysis e.g., to Berlin meeting.

> (3) Change the AVP table in page 56-57, by removing the "Encr" and "SHOULD NOT" columns, and the "P" indication (see attached file) - similarly to the change made in RFC6733

This should be straigh forward. To my understanding no implementation 
follows the 'encr' recommendation in practise. Correct?

> (4) Upgrade Restriction-Filter-Rule AVP to also support RFC 5777

Again here some effort needs to be put to analyze backward compatibility 
is maintained if we touch Restriction-Filter-Rule AVP. I would encourage 
you to come up with a short analysis e.g., to Berlin meeting.

Also, I'll add (5) Credit-Control-Answer when 'E' is set. Check that the 
command is aligned with RFC6733 regarding the error replies.

- Jouni

> Appreciate your feedback!
> Yuval
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list