Subject: [Dime] [Fwd: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-09.txt comments]

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:40:53 -0500

Subject: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-09.txt comments
From: "German Blanco" <[email-masked]>
To: "Victor Fajardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:41:20 +0100

Hello Victor,

congratulations for this good work :-)

After reading the draft, I found a few things that seem to be mistakes:

- There is a hanging sentece in section 9.3. in the second paragraph of
"Split Accounting Service":
"Accounting messages which uses the Diameter base accounting
      application identifier in its header as well as in the Acct-
      Application-Id AVP."
  At least for me it looks out of context.

- I can't understand the text in parenthesis in the end of 2.1."The
transport connection MUST be closed using a RESET call (send a TCP RST
bit) or an SCTP ABORT message (graceful closure is compromised).". Does
it mean that there is a risk not to have a graceful closure?
- The text in the last sentence of 6.9. is a bit strange : "If present
in a message other than CER and CEA, the value of the
Acct-Application-Id AVP MUST match the application id present in the
diameter message header except when used in a CER or CEA messages. " If
it is present in a message other than CER and CEA, then we don't need to
state again "except when used in a CER or CEA messages", or?

Editorial:
- The "AVP" is missing in title of 9.8.2

- in the end of 6.1.8. there is a "used againts" instead of a "used
against"

I also have a question about the addition of commands to applications:
Was it ever consider, now that extendibility of applications by adding
commands is enabled, to enable the use of *optional* commands?
That is, wouldn't it be possible to add a command to an application that
is not strictly required for the application to work, and to add that
command without changing the application id?
I understand that this question should in any case to to the WG list,
but I would like to please have your opinion beforehand if you don't
mind.

Best regards,

German Blanco
Ericsson
mailto: [email-masked]
phone: + 34 630 739143

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

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:32:16 -0500

Hi German,

> - There is a hanging sentece in section 9.3. in the second paragraph 
> of "Split Accounting Service":

Ok. We can make a quick editorial fix.

> bit) or an SCTP ABORT message (graceful closure is compromised).". 
> Does it mean that there is a risk not to have a graceful closure?
>

Yes. I guess the basic assumption for the last sentence is that the 
connection has already been compromised because the peer received 
garbled messages. A reset is used by a node so it can be a means to 
notify the peer that something has gone wrong.

> diameter message header except when used in a CER or CEA messages. " 
> If it is present in a message other than CER and CEA, then we don't 
> need to state again "except when used in a CER or CEA messages", or?
>

Sure. We can fix this as well.

> - in the end of 6.1.8. there is a "used againts" instead of a "used 

Ok.

regards,
victor