Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 12 May 2014 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 7FE841A078C for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 May 2014 15:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 gz4h_C_RThtk for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 May 2014 15:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BFE1A0767 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 May 2014 15:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=29144; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1399932967; x=1401142567; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=NtIJ8GdnMbtDdQuigg5ue7StDtW09yfTtTus6OVTr1U=; b=Es8UZpHZ3DBqVy8aSJqQ2HA714yoiB6OFAlz9FxCgko6/3YRo8g/f2fx 65QAy7pNyn73XyuxBwZt9FgiNHhFDOQLlpBDHWUzxVspyZ+KLCdfwum+a ldTpnd2vO+8LNd4n5RglMy4xKuVe22fHqzdio3Yqw0LVP9hSQuDf1kswk U=;
X-Files: bjaadgda.png : 10718
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiUFAEVHcVOtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgkJET68Djl6BLAGHOgGBGxZ0giUBAQEDAQEBAQIoQQoBBQsLHQEBAQEWDwIHAwIBAgEFAQ4BMAYBDAEEAQIBAQIOiCUIDdAwEwSNZQsRAVAHhEABA4oPhHaDZAGGXoZljCKDVh0wgQk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1038,1389744000"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="324283430"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2014 22:15:52 +0000
Received: from [10.154.137.143] (dhcp-10-154-137-143.cisco.com [10.154.137.143]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4CMFpIa021985; Mon, 12 May 2014 22:15:51 GMT
Message-ID: <53714817.8020100@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:15:51 -0700
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lionel.morand@orange.com, "draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide@tools.ietf.org>
References: <52D9030B.3010402@cisco.com> <533BD276.7000401@cisco.com> <22885_1396976646_53442C06_22885_3037_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E54D5C4@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <53514D73.3090006@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53514D73.3090006@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030503000402040708030105"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/yrMwi6dKRaVQc3egIu0PCssJi8c
Cc: dime mailing list <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide
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: Mon, 12 May 2014 22:16:15 -0000

Hi Lionel,

Thanks for the new version 23.

One question regarding the attached picture.


What does it mean "MUST be re-evaluated" with a RFC 2119 keyword.
RFC 2119 keywords are useful for interoperability, and I don't see why 
it's used here.

Regards, Benoit.

> Hi Lionel,
>
> Thanks for the new version.
> See in line
>>
>>
>>
>> - When I read the document, it looked to me as a BCP.
>>
>> BCP definition from RFC 2026:
>>
>>     5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs
>>
>>       
>>
>>         The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
>>
>>         standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
>>
>> Interestingly, the charter mentions:
>>
>> May 2012, Submit 'Diameter Application Design Guidelines' to the IESG 
>> for consideration as a BCP document
>>
>> */[LM] discussed in another email thread./*
>>
>>
>> If you go to BCP, don't forget to update the abstract, and the writeup.
>>
> Abstract:
>
>     It is meant as a guidelines document and
>     therefore as informative in nature.
>
> I would remove this sentence. Informative and BCP don't go along very well.
>
> Jouni, don't forget to update the writeup.
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> *//**//**//*
>>
>>
>> - Editorial in section 5.7
>> OLD:
>>
>> Destination- Realm
>>   
>> NEW:
>> Destination-Realm
>> */
>> /*
> Still there.
>>
>>
>> *//**//*
>>
>>
>>
>> - Section 5.9
>>
>>   Applications that do not understand these AVPs can discard
>>     them upon receipt.
>>
>> Generic comment: Each time there is a sentence like this one above, 
>> we should mention RFC 6733 as the reference.
>> This document is not an extension/deviation to RFC 6733.
>>
>> */[LM] ok/*
>>
> Still there.
>>
>> *//*
>>
>> *//*
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime