Subject: [Dime] DiME WG meeting in Dallas

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:11 +0200

Hi all,

While our ADs are sorting out the chairing issues, I wanted to solicit
input for the Dallas IETF meeting.  I was thinking of summarizing some
of the outstanding Diameter Base open issues (if you have any, send them
to the mailing list!).  Also, discussion of the upcoming Interop event,
Diameter test plans, Diameter MIPv6 work, Diameter QoS working would all
be good topics.  Speak up if you have any topics you wish to discuss.

John

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:59:19 -0500

Hi John,

Regarding the base protocol document, this issue maybe superficial but 
maybe the auth and/or acct statemachine (sec 8) should reflect server 
initiated request messages. Particularly, explicit support for RAR maybe 
useful and generic text for all others such as PNR can also be added.

victor

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:24:14 -0500

Hi,

I'd like to post a question regarding the trailing [*fixed] avp set of 
diameter-message ABNF in Sec 3.2 of the base proto (where: 
diameter-message = header [*fixed] [*required] [*optional] [*fixed]). 
I'm not familiar with the history of this layout but in which 
scenario(s) are trailing fixed avps used ? So far appending of trailing 
avps are most relevant to proxies and relays but route-records and 
proxy-info are normally tagged as optional as they should be. And at the 
moment, there does'nt seem to be any application defining a trailing 
fixed avp. Maybe this format can be relaxed to help simplify parsing.

Victor