Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-app-design-guide-09

From: Sebastien Decugis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:27:42 +0900

Hello again,

Here is my review of the Application Design Guideline document.

The section 6.1. "Adding AVPs to a Command" seems to be mixing the
mandatory AVPs (with their M bit set) with the required AVP (from the
parent's ABNF), with regards to defining a new application or not. The
confusion is increased by the "optional AVP" meaning both an AVP with
the M bit cleared, or an AVP specified in the ABNF with the '[' ']'
qualifiers. A different wording might help to clarify.

Some editorial comments:
In 1. Introduction :
- first reference to section 1.2 of rfc3588bis should actually be 1.3
(in version -18 of the bis document)
- the sentence "All of these choices are design decisions that can done
by any..." sounds strange to me, but I am not native. I am wondering
anyway if a word is not missing before the 'done' ?
- "functionalitiessi" (second bullet by the end of introduction)

In 3. Overview :
- in the Major Extension definition, the reference to rfc3588bis should
also point to 1.3.

In 6.1 :
- 1st bullet, 2nd sentence, the sentence sounds strange to me (again, I
am not native, sorry if my comment is inappropriate)
- 2nd bullet: Does the TBD refers to the definition of the optional AVP ?
- "A mandatory AVP cannot be added to or deleted from an existing
command with defining a new Diameter application." If my understanding
is correct, it should read "without" here.

In 10, page 10, last paragraph, 5th line: "has to be have a method" the
"be" should be removed.

That is all my comments; the document is very helpful in my opinion!

Best regards,
Sebastien.

-- 
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)