Subject: [Dime] Fwd: Please take a look at the Diameter Guidelines draft

From: "David Frascone" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:32:40 -0400

Some discussion has gone on editing / reviewing the diameter guidelines
draft.  Please review the following thread.

-Dave

Forwarded conversation
Subject: Please take a look at the Diameter Guidelines draft
------------------------

From: *Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)* <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:14 AM
To: [email-masked]

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-07.
txt<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-07.txt>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Diameter Extensibility Design Team" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email-masked]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email-masked]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/diameter-extensibility?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

----------
From: *David Frascone* <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:18 PM
To: [email-masked]

Some nits:

In the abstract, "a guidelines" should be "a guideline"

Introduction, 2nd paragraph, Decisions are "made", not "done".

Section 4, 2nd sentence, There is a 1 or an l after the period.

Section 4, last sentence:  The meaning is clear, but the sentence is a bad
run on.  I suggest something like the following to replace it:

   Thelatter case would result in a new application but it has a more

   subtle issues, like deciding whether importing of commands and
   functionality is really better than simply using the existing
   application.

Section 5, paragraph 1, two sentences start with "In general,"  The second
should be removed.

Section 6.1, the text for the Optional AVP's bullet is not in the bullet.
Also, in the new bullet list under the paragraph,  one of the bullets is
missing a newline.

Section 6.1, I'd replace "When one of the above questions can be answered
with 'yes' then the M-bit has to be set." with "If any of the above
questions can be answered 'yes', then the M-bit must be set"

Section 6.1 The bullets under the above mentioned sentence change do not
have a clear meaning.  I think this might be due to poor indenting.  I think
the intent might have been two nesting levels, but that is not shown in the
text.  Because of that, the bullets are very out of place, and I'm not sure
what they are referring to.

Section 6.1: Last sentence, remove "as much as possible"  That is in
indication that it is ok to break the rules.  I think the "should be
avoided" is enough.  It's a should, not a must.

Section 6.2: 1st sentence:  "Is significant" -- I'm not sure what this
sentence is trying to say.  What is significant?

Section 6.2: bad line formatting in all of the cases.

Section 7: Mandatory characteristics "are tied", not "is tied"

Section 8, first sentence:  How do you maintain an AVP value?

Section 8.2: statemachine is two words, no?  Also, statemachines *are* not
intended for, (not is)  Also, the last sentence isn't really clear.  It uses
the word "example" twice, which is confusing.

Section 9, last sentance needs a newline before it.

Section 11:  Don't use contractions ;) -- get rid of the 'it's' (it is)
Seciton 11: Same paragraph, "it is should be suficient" does not pass my
parser.

----------
From: *Asveren, Tolga* <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:35 AM
To: [email-masked]

1) 4.1
"The rules are strict in the case where the AVP(s) to be added is
 mandatory to be understood and interpreted.  This means that the
 M-bit is set and the AVP(s) is required to exist in command ABNF."

I think we finally have a consensus that M-bit and ABNF are two
different animals (at least theoretically) and it is M-bit which
mandates that receiver has to understand the AVP. So, I would think the
last sentence of the quoted text should say "This means that the M-bit
is set."

2) 5.1
Split Accounting Model

I guess we discussed this but my memory is blur about the outcome:
This model seems to have a problem about advertising accounting
capability. There is no way that an accounting server can indicate the
type of applications for which it can support accounting. So, unless it
is known that the accounting server can handle accounting for all types
of applications, which use split model, in the network there could be
problems with message routing. I guess
"The overall system architecture permits the use of centralized
 accounting for one or more Diameter applications."
is added to warn about this but I am not sure whether it is clear
enough.

3) There are references to a few expired drafts:
[8]  Calhoun, P., "Diameter Resource Management Extensions",
       draft-calhoun-diameter-res-mgmt-08.txt (work in progress),
       March 2001.

  [9]  Asveren, T., "Diameter Duplicate Detection Cons.",
       draft-asveren-dime-dupcons-00 (work in progress), August 2006.

I am not sure whether these will see the daylight again.

4) 5.9
"For general AAA applications, Diameter requires more message
 exchanges for the same set of services compared to RADIUS.
 Therefore, application designers should consider scalability
 issues during the design process."
What does this exactly refer to?

I will check the extensibility wiki as well and probably have another
pass on the design-guidelines draft afterwards.

Thanks,
Tolga

----------
From: *Victor Fajardo* <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 5:52 PM
To: [email-masked]

Hi Tolga,
Ok. This should be cleaned up.
I agree that the sentence is too vague. Since the bis describes these
models a little clearer, do you think we should trim down this section
in the app guide simply enumerate possible problems for each one ?
Ok.
I can't remember exactly but it may have to do with capabilities
exchanges. This maybe another text we can trim down.

-- victor

----------
From: *Hannes Tschofenig* <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 5:05 AM
To: [email-masked]

Can you guys replay these mails to the DIME mailing list?
We need to have a discussion on the list.
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime