Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 25 May 2010 21:41 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
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 153B73A6DE6 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
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 cKtF6VqIkrf0 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 May 2010 14:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303B43A7342 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so414977fga.13 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=V8dqzZZoXcJedxz66hHiygIzKB9IZpZmpIyRbMK/drw=; b=NkRRzkHctLJvC5jIelyOzx5WbaK0DsCiMFD5Yjgt5wtK2oQvc+OYdYW8jmYv0zHCV8 QGMBOxe+PM17+wBE+2tgZ2Soqm1HZZ9sQ5/otzijn0hzbxdiKeSyg1YvZbfHFZyZWa6t GVRxGOMYtJmZz5RBHV8HQ2BhU0TojdqkyJXAI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=nj7wyucX0S/G0CVfecG/Njd87FMhYgVG4ui7zbzdwMjvDboTx7iyEj1JDIDkXNfgEk rL2OYRPLJVmd8vm77ALzdNlJsSWfTCBGLjsYVg6xy1ZEjxhvUb8h6AvNiFkWd2GzIvCn h+VjPlGh4MtOPSjdQs1m755y9Er4ShJp21Y8U=
Received: by 10.87.71.7 with SMTP id y7mr11264565fgk.63.1274821056722; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a88-114-168-249.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-168-249.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.168.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y15sm8087747fkd.38.2010.05.25.13.57.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 25 May 2010 13:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <01d301cafc10$6bc79a40$4356cec0$@net>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 23:57:33 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8CD1C413-0FC9-44BB-AC7C-76785F874DB7@gmail.com>
References: <10A80F70-2ED3-4A02-9711-7A5ED6C702D1@gmail.com> <0F3F1973-63CA-41E1-903A-35D3894D507D@gmail.com> <017301cafbce$09c10580$1d431080$@net> <1033CE87-B78F-4765-9F50-29FEDE6D03CE@gmail.com> <018301cafbee$4b648eb0$e22dac10$@net> <4871F3F3-EBF2-4233-8EDF-A688413CF128@gmail.com> <01d301cafc10$6bc79a40$4356cec0$@net>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status
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: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:41:13 -0000
On May 25, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > jouni korhonen [mailto://jouni.nospam@gmail.com] writes: > > ... > >> o Frank Xia's review (1/3) and Glen's response -> ok >> * I don't have a problem with an AVP occurrence table. Though, I >> would >> generalize the table to just Req & Rep 'general purpose commands' >> that >> are not actually tied to a specific command. Though such general >> purpose >> commands might need text saying they behave like DER/DEA etc.. > > Actually, the more I think about this idea, the less I like it: as you > imply, AVP occurrence tables actually belong in application specs, which > this is not. Good point. In past we had few similar cases (general purpose AVPs) and if we had some recommendations on the use of the AVPs, then we used e.g. the Req & Rep approach. - JOuni > > ... > >
- [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status jouni korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status Glen Zorn
- Re: [Dime] Another round of WGLCs and WG status Glen Zorn