Re: [Dime] DOIC document size and placeholders

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3A91ADD9D for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:58:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgwHiOADE-dJ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562E71AC7EE for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:58:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB3LwqUM039298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:58:53 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <529CAE2D.8020600@usdonovans.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:58:52 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1288D590-986D-4752-8FC4-B52F912C2BDB@nostrum.com>
References: <50C72080-905C-4B1D-BAD8-C0026791BA6E@gmail.com> <6390_1385631299_52970E43_6390_18869_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E3074FC@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <529CAE2D.8020600@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] DOIC document size and placeholders
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:58:57 -0000

On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>; wrote:

> I would prefer to wait to drop the conformance section.  Either that or keep it updated as a separate draft/document to keep us focused on the requirements.

I agree we should keep this section, and perhaps mark it as "to be removed by the RFC editor". While it's not really useful for the RFC, it's extremely useful for the work-in-process draft.

> 
> I agree on the S6a and PCC examples.  Much of that information in already contained in either the requirements RFC or 3GGP DOC document.

Agreed. If we decide it's important, we can publish it as a separate informational RFC.