From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Feb 2 05:18:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051FE21F8A4B for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:18:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z+c-nEIe6EIu for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:18:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE9F21F8A4A for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:18:24 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEuMKk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABDrwmBBYFyAQEBAQMSHgpLBgEIDQQDAQEBCwYMCwEHRQcBAQUEAQQTCBqHY5gxhBebeItQLAYBg2YBgQYmAYJOYwSbHIxd X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,608,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="289224575" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2012 08:18:03 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2012 08:04:05 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07 Thread-Index: Aczhq5Mgnduksq79Q+27cy0gwfFMZAAAX9Gg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:18:26 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:davieseb@scss.tcd.ie]=20 Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:07 PM To: General Area Review Team Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-07.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2 February 2012 IETF LC End Date: 24 January 2012 IESG Telechat date: 16 February 2012 Summary: I have a couple of queries/minor issues regarding checking whether LMA1 and LMA2 are the same node and some hand waving over the idea of 'localized routing setup/signaliing'. There are also a few minor nits. Otherwise this is ready for the IESG. [This document missed the normal gen-art last call allocation notification mechanism for some reason - so I didn't realize it was on my allocation till the end of last call and as a result the review is a bit late.] Major issues: None Minor issues: s5.1, para 3 and s5.2, last para: In s5.1: > MAG1 can verify > whether both MAGs are under the same LMA by comparing the addresses > of LMA1 and LMA2. Is this guaranteed to work? Should we care? Or is this just too bad if the LMA has multiple addresses and the two MNs have different ideas? However in s5.2: > In the case where MNs share the same LMA, LR should be initiated by > LMA1 (i.e.,LMA2) since only LMA1 knows that both MN1 and MN2 belong > to itself by looking up the binding cache entries corresponding to > MN1 and MN2.=20 I am unsure whether these two statements are talking about the same thing - and, if so, are they contradictory? s5.1, last para: > Figure 4 shows another example scenario, similar to the example > scenario illustrated in Figure 3, LMA1 does not respond to MAG1 with > the address of LMA2, instead setting up a localized routing path > directly between itself and LMA2 via localized routing signaling. I am unsure what 'localized routing signaliing' would involve. What would the nodes do for this? Appears to involve some waving of hands. On a slightly broader point, there are a number of places where the phrase 'localized routing setup' (or similar) is used. It would, I think, be useful to add a few words indicating what is thought to be involved although actually doing it is clearly out of scope of this document. Nits/editorial comments: s1, first sentence: > Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] allows the Mobility Access > Gateway to optimize media delivery by locally routing packets *within > itself*,=20 Do you mean this? Shouldn't this be within the local network of the MAG? I have to admit that s9.2 of RFC 5213 is a bit ambiguous here as it is unclear whether 'locally connected' means a direct point-to-point connection or just locally routed. Presumabnly a static node could be in the local net rather than actually directly connected. Perhaps it might be worth copying a bit of the text from RFC 5213 here. s4.2: Expand IPv4-MN-HoA. s4.3: Expand MN-HNP and HAAA.=20 s5.1, para 3: Extraneous space in MIP6- Feature-Vector (MFV). (Might be good to use non-breaking hyphens in the various AVP titles to avoid splits across lines). s5.1, para 3: s/indicating Direct routing/indicating direct routing/ 55.1, para 6 (bottom of page 9): s/anchored to different MAGs is supported. . LMA1/anchored to different MAGs is supported. LMA1/ Fig 5: Would improve readability to offset the 'Option 1' and 'Option 2' labels one space rightwards as the '1' blends into the vertical line at the moment. From ben@nostrum.com Fri Feb 3 14:36:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F75A21F8591 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:36:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sD5vZEU+eT8I for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06EAD21F858F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q13Ma8TN082654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:36:09 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) From: Ben Campbell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:36:08 -0600 Message-Id: To: dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: [Dime] 3588bis Peer Discovery Questions X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:36:10 -0000 Hi All, I'm digesting the Peer Discovery section of 3588bis-29 (Section 5.2), = and have some questions. I apologize in advance if these have been = covered in past discussion. 1) paragraph 1 says that "=85 the later option (DNS) MAY be supported: Does that mean supported "by the software implementation", or supported = "by the network deployment"? That is, is the intent to say that DNS = based peer discovery MAY be implemented, vs MAY be used? 2) Paragraph 2 talks about peer discovery by a client to find a next hop = agent, or an agent to find another (next hop) agent. Is peer discovery = limited to finding Diameter Agents? That is, can a Diameter client = discover a Diameter server? (Perhaps the word "node" was intended rather = than "agent"?) 3) The 4th paragraph from the end says that, when using a site = certificate, _both_ the domain name in the initial query and the name in = the replacement field must match the site certificate. Is that just the = for initial query and the final result, or does it cover any = intermediate steps? (e.g. if your query flow is NAPTR-->SRV-->AAAA, does = the SRV step also need to match?) Is there an expectation that the = client will actually validate against both the queried name and the = resulting name, or is the point merely that the cert should include them = because different clients may start their initial query at different = places in the DDDS sequence? Thanks! Ben.= From glenzorn@gmail.com Sat Feb 4 01:32:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C13021F852A for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 01:32:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5wkBdGXPd4ev for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 01:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C0421F851B for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 01:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so7172440iag.31 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:32:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dT2ekOWNGJURv4vGu/luRoyNSjSmLbX9yXxOzKwow8w=; b=wEPfmn32w8otwSny73hdgb7LD6H+HaxR68xeK9V7QwQwVM1IVBCarg3qeNQuIy+fMu 6eI96D/klyFBV5gPF7ct/rxi1eEOWIXS8KfVfrp+W9KnY1SEy57twOBoahaZakmLhSSP dcTgaqsglRmkQMCdqLu2XPP9DZhvBD1T/6beA= Received: by 10.43.48.132 with SMTP id uw4mr9828297icb.17.1328347936153; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-115-87-72-5.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.72.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x18sm16128688ibi.2.2012.02.04.01.32.11 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:32:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2CFB18.6080204@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:32:08 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jouni korhonen References: <057.0ca7cc0abc305c0fa4d3c5ae33d14fe6@trac.tools.ietf.org> <8C993400-B596-4A55-A229-B8432EC5EEB6@gmail.com> <4E4F7491.5030709@gmail.com> <1DA18178-E97F-4928-AC56-A83DAC8AA5E3@gmail.com> <4E50C54E.4030401@gmail.com> <9CAFBBC5-7F5A-4536-83EA-53EBF3A8AF9B@gmail.com> <4E51289C.20401@gmail.com> <8231E519-1888-4D74-9B8A-293C21E812B6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8231E519-1888-4D74-9B8A-293C21E812B6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis next revision; was Re: [dime] #20: no accounting model specified X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 09:32:18 -0000 Returning to this (at last!) On 8/30/2011 5:14 PM, jouni korhonen wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > >> On 8/21/2011 10:28 PM, jouni korhonen wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>>> Hmm.. Any particular reason why NASREQ uses base app id for ACR/ACA and not base acct id? Actually, I don't think that that is the problem: I believe that NASREQ should use its own app ID in _all_ messages. >>>> >>>> I think that it is an error in 4005. Actually, I find it hard to >>>> believe that NASREQ would ever work except in a monolithic, "toy" >>>> implementation. For example, the NASREQ version of the ASR/ASA messages >>>> includes a bunch of optional AVPs (with the 'M' bit set) that are >>>> undefined in RFC 3588 to the base protocol server; it's hard to imagine >>>> how a standard implementation of 3588 could not treat the reception of >>>> such AVPs as an error. >>> >>> MAybe this is then good candidates to be fixed in 4005bis? Or do you think it would make situation worse in real deployments from a backward compatibility point of view? >> >> I was under the impression that there are no real deployments; if there >> were, someone would certainly have noticed this, don't you think? > > It seems to be the situations.. ;) Thus, fixing the above in RFC4005bis shouldn't then be an issue. > > - Jouni > > >> >> ... > From trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org Sat Feb 4 03:39:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA2721F8504 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W8ndDSP+y8Rk for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA9921F84FF for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RtdxY-0000yH-0L; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:39:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "dime issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net X-Trac-Project: dime Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:39:11 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/16#comment:2 Message-ID: <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 16 In-Reply-To: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: dime@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:39:24 -0000 #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command Comment (by gwz@…): Since I've seen no responses, I'm assuming that it's OK to remove the Vendor-Specific- Application-Id AVP so I've done so. -- -----------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: jouni.nospam@… | Owner: dime@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc4005bis | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: Keywords: | -----------------------------+--------------------- Ticket URL: dime From trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org Sat Feb 4 03:39:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495BB21F8504 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GcMNqXVRyKfY for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA27121F84FF for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:39:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Rtdy4-0002Li-UB; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:39:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "dime issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net X-Trac-Project: dime Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:39:44 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/16#comment:3 Message-ID: <079.0057bda77d9bb46a9d55adb276950dc7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 16 In-Reply-To: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: dime@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:39:48 -0000 #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command Changes (by gwz@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed -- -----------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: jouni.nospam@… | Owner: dime@… Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc4005bis | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -----------------------------+--------------------- Ticket URL: dime From trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org Sat Feb 4 03:57:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C61821F8577 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:57:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A+Qx+xgIv7VT for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:57:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF79C21F8528 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:57:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RteFO-0007IY-3x; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 06:57:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "dime issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: gwz@net-zen.net X-Trac-Project: dime Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:57:38 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/20#comment:1 Message-ID: <072.7efc5b55c217cf1aaa102df152169dde@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.0ca7cc0abc305c0fa4d3c5ae33d14fe6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20 In-Reply-To: <057.0ca7cc0abc305c0fa4d3c5ae33d14fe6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: gwz@net-zen.net, dime@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #20: no accounting model specified X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: dime@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:57:41 -0000 #20: no accounting model specified Changes (by gwz@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: I have made the following modification: OLD: 1.3. Advertising Application Support Diameter applications conforming to this specification MUST advertise support by including the value of one (1) in the Auth-Application-Id of the Capabilities-Exchange-Request (CER), AA-Request (AAR), and AA- Answer (AAA) messages. All other messages use the Base application id value [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. NEW: 1.3. Advertising Application Support Diameter applications conforming to this specification MUST advertise support by including the value of one (1) in the Auth-Application-Id of the Capabilities-Exchange-Request (CER) message. 1.4. Application Identification The Auth-Application-Id AVP MUST be set to the value one (1) in the following messages o AA-Request (Section 3.1) o Re-Auth-Request(Section 3.3) o Session-Termination-Request (Section 3.5) o Abort-Session-Request (Section 3.7) 1.5. Accounting Model It is RECOMMENDED that the coupled accounting model (Section 9.3 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]) be used with this application; therefore, the value of the Acct-Application-Id AVP in the Accounting-Request (Section 3.10) and Accounting-Answer (Section 3.9) messages SHOULD be set to one (1). I believe this fixes the problem. -- --------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: gwz@… | Owner: Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc4005bis | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | --------------------------------+--------------------- Ticket URL: dime From trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org Sat Feb 4 07:22:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92B621F84E7 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:22:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 606mPPiZ9-W7 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED7F21F84DE for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:22:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RthRt-0005Af-4e; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:22:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "dime issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net X-Trac-Project: dime Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:22:44 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/17#comment:2 Message-ID: <079.3415f66a13d30007e02c7e548526d75b@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <064.68d0444852392e4d5c5c35d7b3b08c48@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 17 In-Reply-To: <064.68d0444852392e4d5c5c35d7b3b08c48@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: dime@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #17: QoSFilterRule X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: dime@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:22:59 -0000 #17: QoSFilterRule Changes (by gwz@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: I have changed the beginning of Section 4.4.9 to read thus: 4.4.9. QoS-Filter-Rule AVP The QoS-Filter-Rule AVP (AVP Code 407) is of type QoSFilterRule (Section 4.1.1) and provides QoS filter rules that need to be configured on the NAS for the user. One or more such AVPs MAY be present in an authorization response. The use of this AVP is NOT RECOMMENDED; the AVPs defined by Korhonen, et al. [RFC5777] SHOULD be used instead. I believe this resolves the issue. -- -----------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: jouni.nospam@… | Owner: dime@… Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: rfc4005bis | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | -----------------------------+--------------------- Ticket URL: dime From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Feb 4 07:42:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC04E21F8504; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:42:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cmYIkza00Zl2; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C175321F8438; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:42:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120204154218.14940.23729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:42:18 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:42:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Network Access Server Application Author(s) : Glen Zorn Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt Pages : 65 Date : 2012-02-04 This document describes the Diameter protocol application used for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) services in the Network Access Server (NAS) environment; it obsoletes RFC 4005. When combined with the Diameter Base protocol, Transport Profile, and Extensible Authentication Protocol specifications, this application specification satisfies typical network access services requirements. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt From glenzorn@gmail.com Sat Feb 4 07:45:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29CB21F85C0 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:45:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qHEuVGYutUt for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5178E21F85A3 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 07:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so7522417iag.31 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:45:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KOMqPKsMc9ZzocCQdaLhZE+faP4CpwwK9cFwzGA7UGA=; b=BvnFT6DbhRqLa1xiLdzMs/6z9NyYWDmnhTCF05SXajWYj1LPB6dEPKvRRjfchjqnMU VSYmpTtI5odiRDhO2WgG2xSmAT7EaRRUcwHnAUHzQnKuzIVYQCUqqwXdFRXaRlB/8ezW NOzPH5k3AZNYFVJNY0kAj95EjAOzczEKHY+8Y= Received: by 10.42.107.9 with SMTP id b9mr5301512icp.23.1328370352806; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-115-87-126-135.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.126.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wn6sm9168981igb.3.2012.02.04.07.45.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:45:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2D52AA.7000004@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:45:46 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org References: <20120204154218.14940.23729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120204154218.14940.23729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime-ads@tools.ietf.org, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:45:55 -0000 I believe that all the open issues have been resolved. Will a proto write-up be coming along soon? > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Diameter Network Access Server Application > Author(s) : Glen Zorn > Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt > Pages : 65 > Date : 2012-02-04 > > This document describes the Diameter protocol application used for > Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) services in the > Network Access Server (NAS) environment; it obsoletes RFC 4005. When > combined with the Diameter Base protocol, Transport Profile, and > Extensible Authentication Protocol specifications, this application > specification satisfies typical network access services requirements. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Sat Feb 4 10:31:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE17021F85B1 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:31:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.735, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o6DmHUFaDMhn for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:31:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44D221F85AF for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:31:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYV00NSESRH4P@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:30:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYV008VVSRH58@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:30:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGV17725; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:30:42 +0800 Received: from SZXEML423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.162) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:30:07 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.162]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:30:31 +0800 Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:30:20 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> To: "" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command Thread-index: AQHM4zGxB64RUjGyO0O1VjOzbWARrpYtD7Zy X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> Cc: "dime@ietf.org" , "gwz@net-zen.net" , "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:31:02 -0000 DQoNClNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBpUGFkDQoNCk9uIEZlYiA0LCAyMDEyLCBhdCAzOjM5IEFNLCAiZGlt ZSBpc3N1ZSB0cmFja2VyIiA8dHJhYytkaW1lQGdhbWF5LnRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnPiB3cm90ZToN Cg0KPiAjMTY6IEFjY291bnRpbmctUmVxdWVzdCAoQUNSKSBDb21tYW5kDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gQ29t bWVudCAoYnkgZ3d6QKGtKToNCj4gDQo+IFNpbmNlIEkndmUgc2VlbiBubyByZXNwb25zZXMsIEkn bSBhc3N1bWluZyB0aGF0IGl0J3MgT0sgdG8gcmVtb3ZlIHRoZQ0KPiBWZW5kb3ItU3BlY2lmaWMt IEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uLUlkIEFWUCBzbyBJJ3ZlIGRvbmUgc28uDQpXaHk/IEZvciBzcGVjcyBpbiBJ VFUtVCB3aGljaCB1c2VkIHRoaXMgQVZQIGluIEFDUiwgd2hhdCBzaG91bGQgdGhleSBkbz8NCj4g DQo+IC0tIA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSstLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0NCj4gUmVwb3J0ZXI6ICBqb3VuaS5ub3NwYW1Aoa0gICB8ICAgICAgIE93bmVyOiAgZGlt ZUChrQ0KPiAgICAgVHlwZTogIGRlZmVjdCAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgICAgIFN0YXR1czogIG5ldw0K PiBQcmlvcml0eTogIG1ham9yICAgICAgICAgICAgfCAgIE1pbGVzdG9uZToNCj4gQ29tcG9uZW50 OiAgcmZjNDAwNWJpcyAgICAgICB8ICAgICBWZXJzaW9uOg0KPiBTZXZlcml0eTogIEluIFdHIExh c3QgQ2FsbCAgfCAgUmVzb2x1dGlvbjoNCj4gS2V5d29yZHM6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHwN Cj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0rLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+ IA0KPiBUaWNrZXQgVVJMOiA8aHR0cDovL3RyYWMudG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvZGltZS90cmFj L3RpY2tldC8xNiNjb21tZW50OjI+DQo+IGRpbWUgPGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9k aW1lLz4NCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fDQo+IERpTUUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IERpTUVAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kaW1lDQo= From glenzorn@gmail.com Sat Feb 4 23:06:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476BF21F854C for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:06:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Vw63uV01607 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690DE21F854B for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so8295437iag.31 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:05:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wIs83oeA/9NxvCJqgkpLMIELVbf+SLL9ETTIeyMsOmI=; b=f8jHomCy4iLvosj4u5JrMqtb+ZKilCBSeVIp7l4fYV8OGeP3OSozghEBVApK5yeLui Gr1jvLm6rQ73W4zEipzzmQ0M/6FbJECa7gaTPPBUfVn6orJ4a31AG7eJYYurH2zJiMub BPaM2qBKa0hwns67TJ4zvYRTn8IMkbca7Zz2I= Received: by 10.50.236.5 with SMTP id uq5mr5082447igc.13.1328425559074; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-115-87-126-135.revip4.asianet.co.th. [115.87.126.135]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d15sm20024841ibf.7.2012.02.04.23.05.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:05:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:05:52 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tina TSOU References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "" , "gwz@net-zen.net" , "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:06:00 -0000 On 2/5/2012 1:30 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 3:39 AM, "dime issue tracker" wrote: > >> #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command >> >> >> Comment (by gwz@¡­): >> >> Since I've seen no responses, I'm assuming that it's OK to remove the >> Vendor-Specific- Application-Id AVP so I've done so. > Why? Please see the original issue raised by Mark Jones: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/16 > For specs in ITU-T which used this AVP in ACR, what should they do? Is ITU-T actually using _this_ command, which is derived in an application-specific way from the base ACR message defined in RFC 3588? Or are they using the base command within a vendor-specific application or a customized, application- & vendor-specific version of the base command? In the latter 2 cases, everything is fine... ... From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Sat Feb 4 23:59:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8262E21F853E for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:59:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51SZgLYereeT for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFA721F8537 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYW005EYU6IJF@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:59:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LYW005AAU6I2K@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:59:06 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGV27606; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:59:03 +0800 Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:58:45 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.136]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:58:44 +0800 Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:58:43 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.212.245.171] To: Glen Zorn Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command Thread-index: AQHM4zGxB64RUjGyO0O1VjOzbWARrpYtD7ZygABM+wCAAJRmoA== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> Cc: "t09sg11q5@lists.itu.int" , "" , "gwz@net-zen.net" , "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 07:59:19 -0000 I cc Q5/11, the editors can check it out. Tina > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:06 PM > To: Tina TSOU > Cc: ; gwz@net-zen.net; dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command > > On 2/5/2012 1:30 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 3:39 AM, "dime issue tracker" > wrote: > > > >> #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command > >> > >> > >> Comment (by gwz@...): > >> > >> Since I've seen no responses, I'm assuming that it's OK to remove the > >> Vendor-Specific- Application-Id AVP so I've done so. > > Why? > > Please see the original issue raised by Mark Jones: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/16 > > > For specs in ITU-T which used this AVP in ACR, what should they do? > > Is ITU-T actually using _this_ command, which is derived in an > application-specific way from the base ACR message defined in RFC 3588? > Or are they using the base command within a vendor-specific application > or a customized, application- & vendor-specific version of the base > command? In the latter 2 cases, everything is fine... > > ... From mc-hayashi@kddilabs.jp Sun Feb 5 21:22:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFC421F844D for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:22:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXAQIE30rexw for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from zen.kddilabs.jp (zen.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339D221F8433 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (zen.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by zen.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC62117480BC; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:22:26 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from zen.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zen.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CWmDdjhIdB+7; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:22:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (pink.lan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.98.9]) by zen.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F5D1748071; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:22:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from [172.19.125.102] (dhcp102.east-2f.cn.kddilabs.jp [172.19.125.102]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BEFE280001; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:22:24 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4F2F638F.8090205@kddilabs.jp> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:22:23 +0900 From: Michiaki Hayashi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tina TSOU References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "t09sg11q5@lists.itu.int" , "" , "gwz@net-zen.net" , "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] [T11Q5] RE: [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:22:31 -0000 Tina and all, In my understanding, the issue here is removing Vendor-Specific-Application-Id from ACR/ACA commands. I believe current RFC3588-based protocols (e.g., Rs, Rw, Ri, Rt created by Q5/11) do not define ACR/ACA with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id. But in 3GPP2, X.S0013-008-0(IMS Accounting Information Flows and Protocol) seems to have it in ACR/ACA. Best regards, Michiaki (2012/02/05 16:58), Tina TSOU wrote: > I cc Q5/11, the editors can check it out. > > Tina > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:06 PM >> To: Tina TSOU >> Cc:; gwz@net-zen.net; dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command >> >> On 2/5/2012 1:30 AM, Tina TSOU wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2012, at 3:39 AM, "dime issue tracker" >> wrote: >>> >>>> #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command >>>> >>>> >>>> Comment (by gwz@...): >>>> >>>> Since I've seen no responses, I'm assuming that it's OK to remove the >>>> Vendor-Specific- Application-Id AVP so I've done so. >>> Why? >> >> Please see the original issue raised by Mark Jones: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/16 >> >>> For specs in ITU-T which used this AVP in ACR, what should they do? >> >> Is ITU-T actually using _this_ command, which is derived in an >> application-specific way from the base ACR message defined in RFC 3588? >> Or are they using the base command within a vendor-specific application >> or a customized, application-& vendor-specific version of the base >> command? In the latter 2 cases, everything is fine... >> >> ... > From glenzorn@gmail.com Mon Feb 6 00:29:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D4021F85EA for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:29:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.821 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sknih3XEMZlg for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E7821F85E3 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so9823124iag.31 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:29:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TkEGPSytHfPb+kXfxH7EE0DVi/zZU8BP3X1FzW7NiAE=; b=Jf8P1HcuIM+3wasjCBPCbYOYXkxhnXQs5k2p35Lng2ukN+DmSuMykLa5tlITy68grD qVzrKvL5tRaDTRpNNXhJBmEqCpgTPiqIMl052Qcf8cZEAFimKDw9Y355qhF1WuB1kbjv fG0r+EvL0lCdmBtyPg3jbnxveQO84FVq8vpwc= Received: by 10.50.184.233 with SMTP id ex9mr19895163igc.23.1328516967052; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-124-120-220-66.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.120.220.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cv10sm14727854igc.0.2012.02.06.00.29.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:29:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F2F8F5F.9050607@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:29:19 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michiaki Hayashi References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> <4F2F638F.8090205@kddilabs.jp> In-Reply-To: <4F2F638F.8090205@kddilabs.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "t09sg11q5@lists.itu.int" , "" , "gwz@net-zen.net" Subject: Re: [Dime] [T11Q5] RE: [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:29:28 -0000 On 2/6/2012 12:22 PM, Michiaki Hayashi wrote: > Tina and all, > > In my understanding, the issue here is removing > Vendor-Specific-Application-Id from ACR/ACA commands. No, the question is whether or not to remove the Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP from the specific version of the ACR/ACA commands defined in RFC 4005; this would have no effect whatsoever upon the commands defined in RFC 3588 or any other versions derived therefrom. Does that help? > > I believe current RFC3588-based protocols (e.g., Rs, Rw, Ri, Rt created > by Q5/11) do not define ACR/ACA with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id. > > But in 3GPP2, X.S0013-008-0(IMS Accounting Information Flows and > Protocol) seems to have it in ACR/ACA. > > Best regards, > Michiaki ... From mc-hayashi@kddilabs.jp Mon Feb 6 16:22:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEE811E8080 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:22:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XT1cV5JNYL+D for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zen.kddilabs.jp (zen.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03ABB11E8075 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (zen.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by zen.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C75517480D9; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:22:45 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from zen.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zen.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cUO-a9-l+vNE; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:22:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (pink.lan.kddilabs.jp [172.19.98.9]) by zen.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14DA1748071; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:22:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from [172.19.125.102] (dhcp102.east-2f.cn.kddilabs.jp [172.19.125.102]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC260E280001; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:22:44 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4F306ED2.1030805@kddilabs.jp> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:22:42 +0900 From: Michiaki Hayashi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn References: <064.0512efebff43593dc4038989266f0cc0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <079.e7cb8d9b63ba288a543cf00b1b965a7d@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4F2E2A50.6020907@gmail.com> <4F2F638F.8090205@kddilabs.jp> <4F2F8F5F.9050607@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F2F8F5F.9050607@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "t09sg11q5@lists.itu.int" , "" , "gwz@net-zen.net" Subject: Re: [Dime] [T11Q5] RE: [dime] #16: Accounting-Request (ACR) Command X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:22:49 -0000 If so, I don't see any problem. (2012/02/06 17:29), Glen Zorn wrote: > On 2/6/2012 12:22 PM, Michiaki Hayashi wrote: > >> Tina and all, >> >> In my understanding, the issue here is removing >> Vendor-Specific-Application-Id from ACR/ACA commands. > > No, the question is whether or not to remove the > Vendor-Specific-Application-Id AVP from the specific version of the > ACR/ACA commands defined in RFC 4005; this would have no effect > whatsoever upon the commands defined in RFC 3588 or any other versions > derived therefrom. Does that help? > >> >> I believe current RFC3588-based protocols (e.g., Rs, Rw, Ri, Rt created >> by Q5/11) do not define ACR/ACA with Vendor-Specific-Application-Id. >> >> But in 3GPP2, X.S0013-008-0(IMS Accounting Information Flows and >> Protocol) seems to have it in ACR/ACA. >> >> Best regards, >> Michiaki > > ... > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 9 10:06:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EA321F869C; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:06:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n5fli55U5Iz2; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B043421F865D; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120209180637.6179.14378.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:06:37 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-erp-09.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:06:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol = (ERP) Author(s) : Julien Bournelle Lionel Morand Sebastien Decugis Qin Wu Glen Zorn Filename : draft-ietf-dime-erp-09.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-02-09 The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re- authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER) server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the cryptographic material needed by the re-authentication server. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-erp-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-erp-09.txt From glenzorn@gmail.com Thu Feb 9 10:11:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6134321E8021 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:11:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.933, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id grz+gXBMxJ2J for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCDF21E8014 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so3457027iag.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:11:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0thZVoo3zo4JwmT066QRbefY417YQKrI8cI/KAdd5jg=; b=wrQfieZKZlU6+R6H89zwTP1LZLBcrkLdXic1IzFmGHU7s17Cc8sgX2a2hEEE8WC+eX wLtGwfKsHj+ipPzs1IKK+FsOeXqfNtd3EJu90p0xlyjpnn3MC2wAUA1OtSjdw1hvH14u vAmhLOGSSfrHS2ZcpgfohlwluqzPizVHpG8XY= Received: by 10.42.157.133 with SMTP id d5mr4131116icx.46.1328811079343; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:11:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-124-120-231-108.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.120.231.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id or2sm6208207igc.5.2012.02.09.10.11.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:11:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F340C40.8080900@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:11:12 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org" References: <20120209180637.6179.14378.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120209180637.6179.14378.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime-ads@tools.ietf.org, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-erp-09.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:39 -0000 On this occasion, let me reiterate the question I asked about a month ago: From: "Glen Zorn" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:16 PM Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-erp-08.txt > On 1/13/2012 6:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > > I think this draft is ready for WGLC. Any chance we could get that > started this month? Of course "this month" is now last month, so I guess that the answer was no; this time at least a response would be appreciated, however. From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu Feb 9 23:49:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D8C21F86F0 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 23:49:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vek76wqo-mqt for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 23:49:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D55821F855A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 23:49:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcsg13 with SMTP id g13so1648669qcs.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:49:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=D7+Ic5/eX6uBIY4nsgctZHOseMkARU3sz/qhkzyqTe4=; b=uT4sUzC4NbsQSoGCGjC7PQoPxjHDMHk3g5lWKiDLsTh3beKQ+7zD1aJ4WQBgGWUxSY 86u1i1ZDOVaHNBCmledeD8USACfLg6SlIy2DDHq3RDqYRaoTj9pjzPb9VV/fqPAKj/Fs Han4DnFNRp3n2GUqpYGL3r5QMZJ/DRvoGFGBI= Received: by 10.229.75.143 with SMTP id y15mr3511498qcj.2.1328859795985; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:43:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.255.128.151] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gd3sm11293826qab.6.2012.02.09.23.43.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:43:15 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <4F2D52AA.7000004@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:43:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20120204154218.14940.23729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4F2D52AA.7000004@gmail.com> To: Glen Zorn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dime-ads@tools.ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:49:21 -0000 Thanks Glen for the update and going through the tracker issues. I'll have a read on this first and proceed from there then. - Jouni On Feb 4, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > I believe that all the open issues have been resolved. Will a proto > write-up be coming along soon? >=20 >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and = Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >>=20 >> Title : Diameter Network Access Server Application >> Author(s) : Glen Zorn >> Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt >> Pages : 65 >> Date : 2012-02-04 >>=20 >> This document describes the Diameter protocol application used for >> Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) services in the >> Network Access Server (NAS) environment; it obsoletes RFC 4005. = When >> combined with the Diameter Base protocol, Transport Profile, and >> Extensible Authentication Protocol specifications, this application >> specification satisfies typical network access services = requirements. >>=20 >>=20 >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-07.txt >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From ben@nostrum.com Fri Feb 10 13:33:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA76821F84EB for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:33:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2i6grBmiuDi for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2C821F845A for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1ALXJx4021983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:33:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) From: Ben Campbell In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:33:24 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Subject: Re: [Dime] 3588bis Peer Discovery Questions X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:33:22 -0000 Hi, Any thoughts on the questions below? Thanks! Ben. On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi All, >=20 > I'm digesting the Peer Discovery section of 3588bis-29 (Section 5.2), = and have some questions. I apologize in advance if these have been = covered in past discussion. >=20 > 1) paragraph 1 says that "=85 the later option (DNS) MAY be supported: >=20 > Does that mean supported "by the software implementation", or = supported "by the network deployment"? That is, is the intent to say = that DNS based peer discovery MAY be implemented, vs MAY be used? >=20 > 2) Paragraph 2 talks about peer discovery by a client to find a next = hop agent, or an agent to find another (next hop) agent. Is peer = discovery limited to finding Diameter Agents? That is, can a Diameter = client discover a Diameter server? (Perhaps the word "node" was intended = rather than "agent"?) >=20 > 3) The 4th paragraph from the end says that, when using a site = certificate, _both_ the domain name in the initial query and the name in = the replacement field must match the site certificate. Is that just the = for initial query and the final result, or does it cover any = intermediate steps? (e.g. if your query flow is NAPTR-->SRV-->AAAA, does = the SRV step also need to match?) Is there an expectation that the = client will actually validate against both the queried name and the = resulting name, or is the point merely that the cert should include them = because different clients may start their initial query at different = places in the DDDS sequence? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ben. > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Feb 12 21:42:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F1821F8655; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:42:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KeKuhjR1QZ2t; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:42:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF64521F8595; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:42:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120213054226.1167.45923.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:42:26 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-08.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:42:59 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing Author(s) : Glen Zorn Qin Wu Marco Liebsch Jouni Korhonen Filename : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-08.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-02-12 In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN) without involving any LMA. In order to establish a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-08.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 13 06:58:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F27721F8597; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:58:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4yd9qkzvT1E3; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:58:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A50021F856D; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:58:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120213145839.25887.17847.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:58:39 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:59:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing Author(s) : Glen Zorn Qin Wu Marco Liebsch Jouni Korhonen Filename : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-02-13 In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN) without involving any LMA. In order to establish a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09.txt From emcmurry@estacado.net Mon Feb 13 10:37:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE4021F87CA for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:37:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5sznJl3g0m7 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:37:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B859621F87C5 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:37:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from dn3-227.estacado.net (dn3-227.estacado.net [172.16.3.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1DIb6Gf071277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:37:09 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from emcmurry@estacado.net) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Eric McMurry In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:37:05 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <32F5FD24-BA76-45DB-B7A4-2758299CC6EE@estacado.net> References: To: Ben Campbell X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Cc: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@tools.ietf.org, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] 3588bis Peer Discovery Questions X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:37:15 -0000 I'm curious about this also. A required, non-static, option for peer = discovery that includes agents makes sense in the core spec. Is there a current goal date for the next round of 3588bis? Thanks! Eric =20 On Feb 10, 2012, at 15:33 , Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Any thoughts on the questions below? >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Ben. >=20 > On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >=20 >> Hi All, >>=20 >> I'm digesting the Peer Discovery section of 3588bis-29 (Section 5.2), = and have some questions. I apologize in advance if these have been = covered in past discussion. >>=20 >> 1) paragraph 1 says that "=85 the later option (DNS) MAY be = supported: >>=20 >> Does that mean supported "by the software implementation", or = supported "by the network deployment"? That is, is the intent to say = that DNS based peer discovery MAY be implemented, vs MAY be used? >>=20 >> 2) Paragraph 2 talks about peer discovery by a client to find a next = hop agent, or an agent to find another (next hop) agent. Is peer = discovery limited to finding Diameter Agents? That is, can a Diameter = client discover a Diameter server? (Perhaps the word "node" was intended = rather than "agent"?) >>=20 >> 3) The 4th paragraph from the end says that, when using a site = certificate, _both_ the domain name in the initial query and the name in = the replacement field must match the site certificate. Is that just the = for initial query and the final result, or does it cover any = intermediate steps? (e.g. if your query flow is NAPTR-->SRV-->AAAA, does = the SRV step also need to match?) Is there an expectation that the = client will actually validate against both the queried name and the = resulting name, or is the point merely that the cert should include them = because different clients may start their initial query at different = places in the DDDS sequence? >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> Ben. >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Feb 13 16:16:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E61D21F86D8 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:16:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pfBueuBJlyWR for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:16:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A213221F86D5 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:16:52 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAGKnOU/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABDhRCqFHKBBYFvAQEBAQMSEQ0EUQYBCA0EBAEBAwIGBgwLAQICAwFEBwEBBQQBBBMIARmHY5k1hBeJdpIbgS+KERQECRgCAQcFPgEmgx8/VQEFBiCCBzNjBJsujGk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,414,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="329987089" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2012 19:16:51 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2012 19:10:36 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:16:49 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: Aczqophb1M4qOq2ARyy6dX3lSmB/ZQACw0Gw From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:16:53 -0000 RG9jdW1lbnQgZWRpdG9ycywgDQoNCkNhbiB5b3UgcGxlYXNlIGNoZWNrIHdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIHN0 YXR1cyBvZiB0aGVzZSBjb21tZW50cz8gUGxlYXNlIGRvIG5vdCBtYWtlIGEgY2hhbmdlIG5vdywg ZXZlbiBpZiBhbGwgY29tbWVudHMgd2VyZSBhY2NlcHRlZCwgYnV0IHdhaXQgdW50aWwgYWZ0ZXIg dGhlIHRlbGVjaGF0IHRvIGlzc3VlIGEgcmV2aXNlZCB2ZXJzaW9uLg0KDQpUaGFua3MgYW5kIFJl Z2FyZHMsDQoNCkRhbg0KDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTog aWVzZy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aWVzZy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBC ZWhhbGYgT2YgUnVzcyBIb3VzbGV5DQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBGZWJydWFyeSAxNCwgMjAxMiAx Mjo1NSBBTQ0KVG86IFRoZSBJRVNHDQpDYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kaW1lLXBtaXA2LWxyQHRvb2xz LmlldGYub3JnOyBlbHd5bmRAZGlhbC5waXBleC5jb207IGRpbWUtY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYu b3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSdXNzIEhvdXNsZXkncyBEaXNjdXNzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZGltZS1w bWlwNi1sci0wOTogKHdpdGggRElTQ1VTUykNCg0KUnVzcyBIb3VzbGV5IGhhcyBlbnRlcmVkIHRo ZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYmFsbG90IHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvcg0KZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kaW1lLXBtaXA2LWxy LTA5OiBEaXNjdXNzDQoNCldoZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3Qg bGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFsbA0KZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGlu IHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGluZXMuIChGZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gY3V0IHRoaXMNCmludHJvZHVjdG9y eSBwYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGhvd2V2ZXIuKQ0KDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9pZXNnL3N0YXRlbWVudC9kaXNjdXNzLWNyaXRlcmlhLmh0bWwNCmZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9y bWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IElFU0cgRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQoNCg0KDQot LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpESVNDVVNTOg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQoNCiAgVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMg aGF2ZSBhZ3JlZWQgdG8gbWFrZSBzb21lIGNoYW5nZXMgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIEdlbi1BUlQNCiAg UmV2aWV3IGJ5IEVsd3luIERhdmllcyBvbiAyLUZlYi0yMDEyLiAgVGhlIGNoYW5nZXMgaGF2ZSBu b3QgYmVlbg0KICBwb3N0ZWQgeWV0Lg0KDQoNCg0KDQo= From glenzorn@gmail.com Mon Feb 13 21:14:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDEB21F853A for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T69aq5xRJj4j for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8838D21F8539 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so9003177obb.31 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x+AMCbMfjStTpUOjE4PodYCP8Hcv5Fa67wM7OwkNREY=; b=CR4CDxkqtL2FWiTv+sJoCLATMErwwjr8ofUX49eewZ11cCwEAWWHx9JQJPeMg+UphC MdOEqR+C6Hg8Da9Hj2uIVmznexeubWc85+YARieeNMT15/ACVEyd0QrbQEPeneG1Yxx2 1lnON1yXuruiRwJ3GK3DsV+nOBottzznjWtpQ= Received: by 10.182.17.100 with SMTP id n4mr13740650obd.45.1329196459223; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.98] (ppp-124-120-58-89.revip2.asianet.co.th. [124.120.58.89]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm20566oeh.4.2012.02.13.21.14.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:14:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:14:13 +0700 From: Glen Zorn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Russ Housley \"" , dime@ietf.org, "@tools.ietf.org>"@ietfa.amsl.com Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:14:20 -0000 On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Document editors, > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please do not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any case, a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; elwynd@dial.pipex.com; dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been > posted yet. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Feb 13 23:51:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E672021E804D for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:51:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pY0+XJCu+1kB for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E98521E803C for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:51:43 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFABUSOk/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABDo1OMSoEFgW8BAQEBAgEBAQEPHgo0CwUHBAIBCA0EBAEBAQoGDAsBBgEgBh8IAQgBAQQTCAEZh1oJnTicC4hEgwwGCxQFBAITBgY4GgKDdAgmCQQCAQEHAwiCTGMEmy6FFIdV X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,416,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="330037206" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 02:51:42 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 02:45:25 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:51:39 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: Aczq15PYX6PvdKRWQSi7S4w0wwnqlQAFPsSg References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Glen Zorn" Cc: "Russ Housley \"" , Elwyn Davies , dime@ietf.org, "@tools.ietf.org>"@ietfa.amsl.com Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:51:45 -0000 Hi Glen, The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior to a telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's done, but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will need to issue yet another version.=20 Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley " > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >=20 > On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > Document editors, > > > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please do > not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait > until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > > >=20 > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any case, > a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. >=20 > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Russ Housley > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > > To: The IESG > > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with > DISCUSS) > > > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > DISCUSS: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART > > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been > > posted yet. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Feb 14 15:17:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0933321E8105 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:17:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.86 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sxi3KHqa8RIs for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:17:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2103D21E807F for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:17:04 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFANTqOk+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABDhRCqUnKBB4FyAQEBAQMSEQ0EPgcMBgEIDQQEAQEDAgYGDAsBAgIDAUQHAQEFBAEEEwgBGYdjnRCJdpFugS+KIhMKCAkCDw8ENRcDAoN0CCYJCAoaggczYwSbLoxp X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,420,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="231946920" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 18:17:03 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2012 18:02:40 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:17:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AczrZ4JKOaUfsERIS9mu/YeIO88WLAABw3vQ From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Cc: Robert Sparks Subject: [Dime] FW: Robert Sparks' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:17:05 -0000 RG9jdW1lbnQgZWRpdG9ycywNCg0KUGxlYXNlIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlIGlzc3VlIHJhaXNlZCBieSBS b2JlcnQgaW4gaGlzIERJU0NVU1MuIA0KDQpUaGFua3MgYW5kIFJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCkRhbg0KDQoN Cg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGllc2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9y ZyBbbWFpbHRvOmllc2ctYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFJvYmVydCBTcGFy a3MNClNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgRmVicnVhcnkgMTUsIDIwMTIgMTI6MjUgQU0NClRvOiBUaGUg SUVTRw0KQ2M6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZGltZS1wbWlwNi1sckB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzsgZGltZS1j aGFpcnNAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJvYmVydCBTcGFya3MnIERpc2N1c3Mgb24g ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kaW1lLXBtaXA2LWxyLTA5OiAod2l0aCBESVNDVVNTKQ0KDQpSb2JlcnQgU3Bh cmtzIGhhcyBlbnRlcmVkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYmFsbG90IHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvcg0KZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1kaW1lLXBtaXA2LWxyLTA5OiBEaXNjdXNzDQoNCldoZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNl IGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFsbA0KZW1haWwgYWRk cmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGluZXMuIChGZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gY3V0 IHRoaXMNCmludHJvZHVjdG9yeSBwYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGhvd2V2ZXIuKQ0KDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIg dG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZXNnL3N0YXRlbWVudC9kaXNjdXNzLWNyaXRlcmlhLmh0 bWwNCmZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IElFU0cgRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCBw b3NpdGlvbnMuDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpESVNDVVNTOg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0K DQpUaGUgcmVsYXRpb25zaGlwIGJldHdlZW4gdGhpcyBhbmQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHNwZWNpZnlp bmcgIkxvY2FsaXplZCBSb3V0aW5nIGZvciBQcm94eSBNb2JpbGUgSVB2NiINCjxodHRwczovL2Rh dGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLW5ldGV4dC1wbWlwLWxyLz4gKGN1cnJl bnRseSBpbiBsYXN0IGNhbGwpIGlzIG5vdCBjbGVhci4gV2hhdCBsZXZlbCBvZiBjb29yZGluYXRp b24gZXhpc3RzIGJldHdlZW4gRElNRSBhbmQgTkVURVhUIG9uIHRoZXNlIGRvY3VtZW50cz8gQXJl IHRoZSBhdXRob3JpemF0aW9uIHN0ZXBzIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGFjdHVh bGx5IHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIGJlaW5nIHNwZWNpZmllZCBieSBuZXRleHQ/DQoNCk5v dGUgdGhhdCBuZWl0aGVyIGRvY3VtZW50IGN1cnJlbnRseSByZWZlcmVuY2VzIHRoZSBvdGhlci4g DQoNCg0KDQoNCg== From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Feb 16 08:51:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36AD21F8867 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:51:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YECz+NEeex9L for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:51:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256DE21F87D5 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:51:28 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAJMzPU+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEhRGqY2+BB4FyAQEBAQMSEQ0ERQwGAQgNBAQBAQMCBgYMCwECAgMBRAcBAQUEAQQTCAEZh2adJYl2kWqBL4oyCAULBAkJBwUFLxAGAwKDXAQwCQQFDQ2CBzNjBJs2jGo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,430,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="291693631" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2012 11:51:27 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2012 11:37:00 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:51:24 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ralph Droms' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AczswklQNzxc93PkQ7ycDqS73X/QMAACIXNg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Cc: Ralph Droms , Robert Sparks Subject: [Dime] FW: Ralph Droms' Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:51:38 -0000 QW5vdGhlciBpc3N1ZSByYWlzZWQgaW4gYSBESVNDVVNTIGJ5IFJhbHBoLCByZWxhdGVkIHRvIHRo ZSBpc3N1ZSByYWlzZWQgYnkgUm9iZXJ0IGluIGhpcyBESVNDVVNTLiANCg0KSSB3b3VsZCBhc2sg dGhlIGVkaXRvciBhbmQgdGhlIFdHIGNoYWlycyB0byBhbnN3ZXIgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9ucy4gDQoN CkFzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCB3YXMgbm90IGFwcHJvdmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBJRVNHIGlu IHRoZSB0ZWxlY2hhdCB0b2RheSwgYW5kIGdvZXMgaW50byBBRCBGb2xsb3ctVXAuIA0KDQpUaGFu a3MgYW5kIFJlZ2FyZHMsDQoNCkRhbg0KDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0t LQ0KRnJvbTogaWVzZy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aWVzZy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYu b3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgUmFscGggRHJvbXMNClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBGZWJydWFyeSAx NiwgMjAxMiA1OjQ3IFBNDQpUbzogVGhlIElFU0cNCkNjOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRpbWUtcG1pcDYt bHJAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGRpbWUtY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBS YWxwaCBEcm9tcycgRGlzY3VzcyBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWRpbWUtcG1pcDYtbHItMDk6ICh3aXRo IERJU0NVU1MpDQoNClJhbHBoIERyb21zIGhhcyBlbnRlcmVkIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYmFsbG90 IHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvcg0KZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1kaW1lLXBtaXA2LWxyLTA5OiBEaXNjdXNzDQoNCldo ZW4gcmVzcG9uZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJl cGx5IHRvIGFsbA0KZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGlu ZXMuIChGZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gY3V0IHRoaXMNCmludHJvZHVjdG9yeSBwYXJhZ3JhcGgsIGhvd2V2 ZXIuKQ0KDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZXNnL3N0YXRlbWVu dC9kaXNjdXNzLWNyaXRlcmlhLmh0bWwNCmZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IElFU0cg RElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpESVND VVNTOg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQpJIGhvcGUgdGhpcyBEaXNjdXNzIGlzc3VlIHdpbGwgYmUg ZWFzeSB0byByZXNvbHZlLg0KDQpUbyB3aGF0IGV4dGVudCBoYXMgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBiZWVu IHJldmlld2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBuZXRleHQgV0c/ICBJDQpkb24ndCBzZWUgYW55IGluZGljYXRpb24g b2YgcmV2aWV3IG90aGVyIHRoYW4gaW4gdGhlIGRpbWUgV0cuICBHaXZlbg0KdGhhdCB0aGlzIGRv Y3VtZW50IGRlc2NyaWJlcyBob3cgUE1JUDYgdXNlcyBEaWFtZXRlciBtZWNoYW5pc21zLCBJDQp3 b3VsZCBoYXZlIGV4cGVjdGVkIGF0IGxlYXN0IGEgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGluIG5ldGV4dCwgYW5k IEknbSBjdXJpb3VzDQphYm91dCB3aHkgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzbid0IGEgcHJvZHVjdCBvZiBuZXRl eHQgd2l0aCByZXZpZXcgYnkgZGltZS4NCg0KDQoNCg0KDQo= From elwynd@googlemail.com Fri Feb 17 01:31:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EBD21F8759 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:31:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVseCK4YX6fQ for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739E521F874F for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so993067wer.31 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:30:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JRTMFNOOoeDIDyBx4e4IH10rxGaN4igK/H5mXVq5WoE=; b=X1eD6QF/zBAsLC+2O7DAkWv+u0uDNmIGigWpzLH13j38YJE4roYJL5mqCX1KTcljY+ 8toof0E141CcVh2wmYBhwT1CSamHDGcTB4Jdn5nR2AAoH8gzuvKsmQOZ0UCeiteGO/cf tq+LSeKv103rJad1IISxuNjG9VY+V5LtclKkw= Received: by 10.180.83.97 with SMTP id p1mr2259322wiy.19.1329471059602; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:30:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [81.187.254.250] (250.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa. [81.187.254.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y1sm32677291wiw.6.2012.02.17.01.30.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:30:58 -0800 (PST) From: The Master To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" In-Reply-To: References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:33:34 +0000 Message-Id: <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:04:16 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org, "Russ Housley \"" , draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@googlemail.com List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:31:01 -0000 Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on v07 as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which I ought to be improved. Regards, Elwyn On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Glen, > > The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the > shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior to a > telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all > changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's done, > but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will need > to issue yet another version. > > Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley " > > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > > > On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > Document editors, > > > > > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please do > > not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait > > until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > > > > > > > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any > case, > > a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Russ Housley > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > > > To: The IESG > > > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > > dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: > (with > > DISCUSS) > > > > > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > > this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > > criteria.html > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > DISCUSS: > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > > > > > > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART > > > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been > > > posted yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > DiME mailing list > > > DiME@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Feb 19 01:01:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E361621F8549 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:01:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8TI8MKQsSC-H for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A730021F852C for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAIy5QE/GmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEpCaOA4EHgXMBAQEBAwEBAQ8eCjQLDAQCAQgNBAQBAQEKBgwLAQYBIAYfCAEIAQEEARIIARmHZ517mnyIaoMRBAIPAQYCARAELRWDWwEwCAYBBAYGgkpjBJs2hRiHV4Fb X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,445,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="292107729" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2012 04:01:35 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2012 03:55:01 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:01:32 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AcztVt30qWuWSChZTGuuh/dIbiCEGQBjflLw References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , , Cc: "Russ Housley \"" Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:01:39 -0000 Document editors,=20 Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- > lr@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >=20 > Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, >=20 > The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on > v07 > as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits > *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which I > ought to be improved. >=20 > Regards, > Elwyn >=20 > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > Hi Glen, > > > > The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the > > shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior to > a > > telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all > > changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's > done, > > but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will > need > > to issue yet another version. > > > > Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley " > > > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > > > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > Document editors, > > > > > > > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please > do > > > not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait > > > until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > > > > > > > > > > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any > > case, > > > a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > > Of Russ Housley > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > > > > To: The IESG > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; > elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > > > dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: > > (with > > > DISCUSS) > > > > > > > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > > > > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > > > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > > all > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut > > > this > > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > > > criteria.html > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen- > ART > > > > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not > been > > > > posted yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > DiME mailing list > > > > DiME@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From kprasad@sandvine.com Mon Feb 20 04:56:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C793321F86EE for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:56:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTnMirKJDIfK for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:56:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C9D21F86DD for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from blr-exch-1.sandvine.com (10.30.4.60) by WTL-EXCH-1.sandvine.com (192.168.196.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:56:27 -0500 Received: from BLR-EXCH-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d]) by blr-exch-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d%16]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:26:25 +0530 From: Krishna Prasad To: "dime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands Thread-Index: Aczvzw0CgqsVIiAwQY++YjYwNZzTEw== Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:56:24 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.30.10.45] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC3367Ablrexch1sandvin_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:56:37 -0000 --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC3367Ablrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Diameter experts, Diameter base protocol addresses some level of redundancy mechani= sms by defining failover and failback procedures and Device Watchdog messag= es etc. For sure, this simplified or standardized the failover procedures a= cross different implementations which we claim one of the benefits of diame= ter over RADIUS. Though the diameter base protocol supports facilities for when to trigger f= ailover/failback procedures, retransmissions etc..but it does not exactly = specify to which alternate peer a diameter node should failover in case of = primary peer failure. This is because a diameter node does not know who is = secondary for a given primary peer and this is completely left to the imple= mentations choice (probably as a configuration or DNS etc...). What I mean = here is, we can left it open for the users to configure secondary peers for= a given primary peer. So is it not a good idea to support for diameter nod= es to exchange the secondary peers identities also during CER/CEA? For example client sends CER with its list of secondary peers and server re= sponds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If there is any change in t= his list of secondary peers the peers can dynamically exchange this informa= tion using 'Diameter Capabilities Update' application. (draft-ietf-dime-cap= ablities-update-07). I am not sure if this option is already discussed in the working group earl= ier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion on this. Does it make= sense, completely useless , out of diameter scope, too late to incorporate= this in base etc...? Prasad. Sandvine Networks --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC3367Ablrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Diameter experts,

        &nbs= p; Diameter base protocol addresses some level of redundancy mechanisms by = defining failover and failback procedures and Device Watchdog messages etc.= For sure, this simplified or standardized the failover procedures across d= ifferent implementations which we claim one of the benefits of diameter over RADIUS= .

Though the diameter base protocol supports facilitie= s for when to trigger failover/failback procedures, retransmissions  e= tc..but it does not exactly specify to which alternate peer a diameter node= should failover in case of primary peer failure. This is because a diameter node does not know who is secondary fo= r a given primary peer and this is completely left to the implementations c= hoice (probably as a configuration or DNS etc…). What I mean here is,= we can left it open for the users to configure secondary peers for a given primary peer. So is it not a good id= ea to support for diameter nodes to exchange the secondary peers identities= also during CER/CEA?

For example client sends CER with its list of second= ary peers and server responds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If t= here is any change in this list of secondary peers the peers can dynamicall= y exchange this information using ‘Diameter Capabilities Update’ application. (draft-ietf-dime-c= apablities-update-07).

 

I am not sure if this option is already discussed in= the working group earlier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion=   on this. Does it make sense, completely useless , out of diameter sc= ope, too late to incorporate this in base etc…?

 

 

Prasad.

Sandvine Networks

--_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC3367Ablrexch1sandvin_-- From vin.vashishth@gmail.com Mon Feb 20 10:24:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C7121F85B8 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QvZz1Uksu2M4 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BD721F85B6 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbgn7 with SMTP id gn7so3348156wgb.1 for ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of vin.vashishth@gmail.com designates 10.180.93.4 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.93.4; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of vin.vashishth@gmail.com designates 10.180.93.4 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=vin.vashishth@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=vin.vashishth@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.93.4]) by 10.180.93.4 with SMTP id cq4mr19195263wib.21.1329762246210 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yyRoUzxlju10roA3Rg/JaVSUVjCHrm0YUyZJbOTQzC8=; b=X+7z/3Y8444u9tvFjjSnU/lUr5hByKKCQTS2I2PzrNRprO/gKQBOqttNfvmIuF9ZqD 6E0PpUkGhnVnd1MWuBICdbnu/y7WfGpB2nZ2IFWYi2ULo5QXL6yljrcGOaC4q4FzBLZR 4RtNGjlpRlhZCmHKYIpc+YflYBFTw4j9/a6CI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.93.4 with SMTP id cq4mr15904002wib.21.1329762243761; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.4.198 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.4.198 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:24:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:03 +0530 Message-ID: From: Vineet Vashishth To: Krishna Prasad Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c80682cd4f004b96966fe Cc: "dime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:24:14 -0000 --f46d043c80682cd4f004b96966fe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Krishna, Yes, diameter protocol does not talk about the implementation of failover and failvack. But I believe its not a good idea to have a pre-decided set of secondary peers, as the peers which are configured might not be up at exact time, when a diameter node wants to do failover. It should be dynamic selection. Instead a simpler implementation would be, to select a peer from the list of the locally configured peers (that are up) and which supports same application. Regards, Vineet On Feb 20, 2012 6:26 PM, "Krishna Prasad" wrote: > Diameter experts,**** > > Diameter base protocol addresses some level of redundancy > mechanisms by defining failover and failback procedures and Device Watchd= og > messages etc. For sure, this simplified or standardized the failover > procedures across different implementations which we claim one of the > benefits of diameter over RADIUS.**** > > Though the diameter base protocol supports facilities for when to trigger > failover/failback procedures, retransmissions etc..but it does not exact= ly > specify to which alternate peer a diameter node should failover in case o= f > primary peer failure. This is because a diameter node does not know who i= s > secondary for a given primary peer and this is completely left to the > implementations choice (probably as a configuration or DNS etc=85). What = I > mean here is, we can left it open for the users to configure secondary > peers for a given primary peer. So is it not a good idea to support for > diameter nodes to exchange the secondary peers identities also during > CER/CEA?**** > > For example client sends CER with its list of secondary peers and server > responds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If there is any change = in > this list of secondary peers the peers can dynamically exchange this > information using =91Diameter Capabilities Update=92 application. > (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07).**** > > ** ** > > I am not sure if this option is already discussed in the working group > earlier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion on this. Does i= t > make sense, completely useless , out of diameter scope, too late to > incorporate this in base etc=85?**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Prasad.**** > > Sandvine Networks**** > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > --f46d043c80682cd4f004b96966fe Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Krishna,

Yes, diameter protocol does not talk about the implementation of failove= r and failvack.=A0 But I believe its not a good idea to have a pre-decided = set of secondary peers, as the peers which are configured might not be up a= t exact time, when a diameter node wants to do failover. It should be dynam= ic selection.

Instead a simpler implementation would be, to select a peer from the lis= t of the locally configured peers (that are up) and which supports same app= lication.

Regards,
Vineet

On Feb 20, 2012 6:26 PM, "Krishna Prasad&qu= ot; <kprasad@sandvine.com>= ; wrote:

Diameter experts,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Diameter base protocol a= ddresses some level of redundancy mechanisms by defining failover and failb= ack procedures and Device Watchdog messages etc. For sure, this simplified = or standardized the failover procedures across different implementations which we claim one of the benefits of diameter over RADIUS= .

Though the diameter base protocol supports facilitie= s for when to trigger failover/failback procedures, retransmissions=A0 etc.= .but it does not exactly specify to which alternate peer a diameter node sh= ould failover in case of primary peer failure. This is because a diameter node does not know who is secondary fo= r a given primary peer and this is completely left to the implementations c= hoice (probably as a configuration or DNS etc=85). What I mean here is, we = can left it open for the users to configure secondary peers for a given primary peer. So is it not a good id= ea to support for diameter nodes to exchange the secondary peers identities= also during CER/CEA?

For example client sends CER with its list of second= ary peers and server responds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If t= here is any change in this list of secondary peers the peers can dynamicall= y exchange this information using =91Diameter Capabilities Update=92 application. (draft-ietf-dime-capabliti= es-update-07).

=A0

I am not sure if this option is already discussed in= the working group earlier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion= =A0 on this. Does it make sense, completely useless , out of diameter scope= , too late to incorporate this in base etc=85?

=A0

=A0

Prasad.

Sandvine Networks


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

--f46d043c80682cd4f004b96966fe-- From kprasad@sandvine.com Tue Feb 21 03:23:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8540C21F871D for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:23:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EGPYsq2ErT5s for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:23:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B4621F8606 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:23:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from blr-exch-1.sandvine.com (10.30.4.60) by WTL-EXCH-1.sandvine.com (192.168.196.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:23:19 -0500 Received: from BLR-EXCH-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d]) by blr-exch-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d%16]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:53:17 +0530 From: Krishna Prasad To: Vineet Vashishth Thread-Topic: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands Thread-Index: Aczvzw0CgqsVIiAwQY++YjYwNZzTE////1eA//6RNbA= Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:23:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.30.10.45] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC34BA6blrexch1sandvin_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:23:26 -0000 --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC34BA6blrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Vineet, The secondary/failover peer should always be pre-decided; just selecting= a peer supporting same application is not enough and we can't randomly pic= k a peer and start failover to that peer. The key question here is, do we n= eed to learn the secondary peers thru configuration ( this how it happens t= oday) or via diameter messaging. My opinion is, as diameter already attempt= s to standardize the failover/failback procedure why not complete this feat= ure by defining the list of secondary peers to be learnt on diameter signal= ing. If this information is exchanged via diameter messaging, especially ru= ntime/dynamically this will simplify lot of OAM aspects for the operators i= n real deployments. Krishna Prasad. From: Vineet Vashishth [mailto:vin.vashishth@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:54 PM To: Krishna Prasad Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands Hi Krishna, Yes, diameter protocol does not talk about the implementation of failover a= nd failvack. But I believe its not a good idea to have a pre-decided set o= f secondary peers, as the peers which are configured might not be up at exa= ct time, when a diameter node wants to do failover. It should be dynamic se= lection. Instead a simpler implementation would be, to select a peer from the list o= f the locally configured peers (that are up) and which supports same applic= ation. Regards, Vineet On Feb 20, 2012 6:26 PM, "Krishna Prasad" > wrote: Diameter experts, Diameter base protocol addresses some level of redundancy mechani= sms by defining failover and failback procedures and Device Watchdog messag= es etc. For sure, this simplified or standardized the failover procedures a= cross different implementations which we claim one of the benefits of diame= ter over RADIUS. Though the diameter base protocol supports facilities for when to trigger f= ailover/failback procedures, retransmissions etc..but it does not exactly = specify to which alternate peer a diameter node should failover in case of = primary peer failure. This is because a diameter node does not know who is = secondary for a given primary peer and this is completely left to the imple= mentations choice (probably as a configuration or DNS etc...). What I mean = here is, we can left it open for the users to configure secondary peers for= a given primary peer. So is it not a good idea to support for diameter nod= es to exchange the secondary peers identities also during CER/CEA? For example client sends CER with its list of secondary peers and server re= sponds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If there is any change in t= his list of secondary peers the peers can dynamically exchange this informa= tion using 'Diameter Capabilities Update' application. (draft-ietf-dime-cap= ablities-update-07). I am not sure if this option is already discussed in the working group earl= ier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion on this. Does it make= sense, completely useless , out of diameter scope, too late to incorporate= this in base etc...? Prasad. Sandvine Networks _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC34BA6blrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Vineet,

   The secondar= y/failover peer should always be pre-decided; just selecting a peer support= ing same application is not enough and we can’t randomly pick a peer and start failover to that peer. The key question here is, do we need to l= earn the secondary peers thru configuration ( this how it happens today) or= via diameter messaging. My opinion is, as diameter already attempts to sta= ndardize the failover/failback procedure why not complete this feature by defining the list of secondary peers to b= e learnt on diameter signaling. If this information is exchanged via diamet= er messaging, especially runtime/dynamically this will simplify lot of OAM = aspects for the operators in real deployments.

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

Krishna Prasad.

 <= /p>

From: Vineet V= ashishth [mailto:vin.vashishth@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:54 PM
To: Krishna Prasad
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] Alternate (secondary) peers in diameter commands=

 

Hi Krishna,

Yes, diameter protocol does not talk about the implementation of failove= r and failvack.  But I believe its not a good idea to have a pre-decid= ed set of secondary peers, as the peers which are configured might not be u= p at exact time, when a diameter node wants to do failover. It should be dynamic selection.

Instead a simpler implementation would be, to select a peer from the lis= t of the locally configured peers (that are up) and which supports same app= lication.

Regards,
Vineet

On Feb 20, 2012 6:26 PM, "Krishna Prasad" = <kprasad@sandvine.com> wr= ote:

Diameter experts,

          Diameter ba= se protocol addresses some level of redundancy mechanisms by defining failo= ver and failback procedures and Device Watchdog messages etc. For sure, thi= s simplified or standardized the failover procedures across different implementations w= hich we claim one of the benefits of diameter over RADIUS.

Though the diameter base protocol supports facilities for when to = trigger failover/failback procedures, retransmissions  etc..but it doe= s not exactly specify to which alternate peer a diameter node should failover in case of primary peer failure. This= is because a diameter node does not know who is secondary for a given prim= ary peer and this is completely left to the implementations choice (probabl= y as a configuration or DNS etc…). What I mean here is, we can left it open for the users to configure second= ary peers for a given primary peer. So is it not a good idea to support for= diameter nodes to exchange the secondary peers identities also during CER/= CEA?

For example client sends CER with its list of secondary peers and = server responds with its list of secondary peers in CEA. If there is any ch= ange in this list of secondary peers the peers can dynamically exchange this information using ‘Diameter = Capabilities Update’ application. (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update= -07).

 

I am not sure if this option is already discussed in the working g= roup earlier, if not I would like to know the experts opinion  on this= . Does it make sense, completely useless , out of diameter scope, too late to incorporate this in base etc…?<= o:p>

 

 

Prasad.

Sandvine Networks


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

--_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E62EC34BA6blrexch1sandvin_-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 21 22:23:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7552621E8067; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:23:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYKSkgBNSflx; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:23:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DD021F88BB; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:22:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p2 Message-ID: <20120222062251.27530.7387.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:22:51 -0800 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:23:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing Author(s) : Glen Zorn Qin Wu Marco Liebsch Jouni Korhonen Filename : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-02-21 In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed directly between an MN's MAG and the MAG of its Correspondent Node (CN) without involving any LMA. In order to establish a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10.txt From bill.wu@huawei.com Tue Feb 21 22:25:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB6421F8496 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:25:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o2l2V5+SF2DV for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B460921F8468 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZS005RO761KT@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZS000AG761YX@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGZ49828; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:24:40 +0800 Received: from SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:24:21 +0800 Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.149) by SZXEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:24:35 +0800 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:24:34 +0800 From: Qin Wu X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149] To: elwynd@googlemail.com, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> Cc: dime@ietf.org, "Russ Housley \"" , draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:25:53 -0000 Hi,Elwyn: Sorry for late. I have just fixed the editorial nits we discussed in the version -10. The diff is: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-10 Sorry for forgetting to incorporate this part of changes. Regards! -Qin Wu ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Master" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" Cc: "Glen Zorn" ; "Russ Housley "" ; ; Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, > > The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on v07 > as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits > *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which I > ought to be improved. > > Regards, > Elwyn > > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> Hi Glen, >> >> The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the >> shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior to a >> telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all >> changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's done, >> but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will need >> to issue yet another version. >> >> Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM >> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> > Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley " >> > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >> > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >> > >> > On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> > > Document editors, >> > > >> > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please do >> > not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait >> > until after the telechat to issue a revised version. >> > > >> > >> > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any >> case, >> > a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. >> > >> > > Thanks and Regards, >> > > >> > > Dan >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of Russ Housley >> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM >> > > To: The IESG >> > > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; elwynd@dial.pipex.com; >> > dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org >> > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: >> (with >> > DISCUSS) >> > > >> > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for >> > > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss >> > > >> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >> all >> > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut >> > this >> > > introductory paragraph, however.) >> > > >> > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- >> > criteria.html >> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > - >> > > DISCUSS: >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > - >> > > >> > > >> > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen-ART >> > > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not been >> > > posted yet. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > DiME mailing list >> > > DiME@ietf.org >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > From bill.wu@huawei.com Tue Feb 21 22:28:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C934321E8046 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:28:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZD2OkBlUr3B8 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:28:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E856E21E8072 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:28:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZS001WZ76WK7@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZS00J8F74X4Y@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHH52018; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:43 +0800 Received: from SZXEML418-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) by szxeml209-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:21 +0800 Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.149) by szxeml418-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:37 +0800 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:25:36 +0800 From: Qin Wu X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149] To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , elwynd@googlemail.com, dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org Message-id: <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> Cc: "Russ Housley \"" Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:28:12 -0000 Dan: We have fixed this part in the new version -10. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: ; ; Cc: "Glen Zorn" ; "Russ Housley "" Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:01 PM Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Document editors, Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor? Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- > lr@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, > > The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on > v07 > as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits > *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which I > ought to be improved. > > Regards, > Elwyn > > On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > Hi Glen, > > > > The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the > > shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior to > a > > telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all > > changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's > done, > > but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will > need > > to issue yet another version. > > > > Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM > > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > > > Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley " > > > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > > > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > Document editors, > > > > > > > > Can you please check what is the status of these comments? Please > do > > > not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but wait > > > until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > > > > > > > > > > Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any > > case, > > > a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. > > > > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > > Of Russ Housley > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > > > > To: The IESG > > > > Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; > elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > > > dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: > > (with > > > DISCUSS) > > > > > > > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > > > > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > > > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > > all > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut > > > this > > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > > > criteria.html > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen- > ART > > > > Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not > been > > > > posted yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > DiME mailing list > > > > DiME@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From elwynd@googlemail.com Wed Feb 22 05:25:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560D821F8797 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:25:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ug3D036j6iIp for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D2021F864C for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkuw12 with SMTP id w12so27686bku.31 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of elwynd@googlemail.com designates 10.204.128.143 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.128.143; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of elwynd@googlemail.com designates 10.204.128.143 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=elwynd@googlemail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elwynd@googlemail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.204.128.143]) by 10.204.128.143 with SMTP id k15mr15794277bks.101.1329917072391 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7b0+DLhwpMSLf3vIEw4VGjM/yDVot7WIC12LJApIorI=; b=qr6FPDzQX5Aao5POsbUYTKN7nNLDWNZ0G+riEdS+grjXNi9GLz+SAR8iWpehj1T4n0 q8O0o16ktkLKa6GItbMUlEWqBw3W4qzNVqv8TNgjZRrlOOHJjgtaaglRliWaba5L4tnS n0SpNVnlI9Aow9Kmd1fLh5jbkr0xKYPXzbLt8= Received: by 10.204.128.143 with SMTP id k15mr12764127bks.101.1329917072207; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.125.5.123] (fawlty.dsg.cs.tcd.ie. [134.226.36.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm51786378bkb.3.2012.02.22.05.24.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F44EC8B.1090400@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:24:27 +0000 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qin Wu References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:26:37 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:25:00 -0000 Hi. That seems to improved things except: s1, para 1: The 'itself' is still unclear as to what it refers to. suggest s/itself/the same Mobile Access Gateway/. s5.1, para 3: s/indicating Direct routing/indicating direct routing/ Regards, Elwyn On 22/02/12 06:25, Qin Wu wrote: > Dan: > > We have fixed this part in the new version -10. > > Regards! > -Qin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > To:;; > Cc: "Glen Zorn"; "Russ Housley "" > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:01 PM > Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > > Document editors, > > Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by > Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor? > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- >> lr@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >> >> Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, >> >> The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on >> v07 >> as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits >> *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which > I >> ought to be improved. >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn >> >> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>> Hi Glen, >>> >>> The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the >>> shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior > to >> a >>> telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all >>> changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's >> done, >>> but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will >> need >>> to issue yet another version. >>> >>> Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? >>> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM >>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>>> Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley" >>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >>>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>>> >>>> On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>> Document editors, >>>>> >>>>> Can you please check what is the status of these comments? > Please >> do >>>> not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but > wait >>>> until after the telechat to issue a revised version. >>>> Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any >>> case, >>>> a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. >>>> >>>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>>> Of Russ Housley >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM >>>>> To: The IESG >>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; >> elwynd@dial.pipex.com; >>>> dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: >>> (with >>>> DISCUSS) >>>>> Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for >>>>> draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss >>>>> >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to >>> all >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >> cut >>>> this >>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>> >>>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- >>>> criteria.html >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>>> >>>>> The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen- >> ART >>>>> Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not >> been >>>>> posted yet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> DiME mailing list >>>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DiME mailing list >>> DiME@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Feb 22 06:34:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A34121F8716 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:34:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.356 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rFabW2sNv78A for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:34:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CC321F86F6 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:34:11 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAKj7RE+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABDpTeNL4EHgXMBAQEBAgEBAQEPHgo0CwwEAgEIDQQEAQEBCgYMCwEGASAGHwgBCAEBBAESCAEZh18Jm2ecHIh/g0gBCQYKBAEGAQ8HPwQRBIUeBTsMBgUDBwsEC4JKYwSbN4UYh1eBWw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,464,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="331831875" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2012 09:34:10 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2012 09:19:31 -0500 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F44EC8B.1090400@googlemail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AczxZVTf1zEnZolIQ1+anLp7TweAmAACaTzw References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> <4F44EC8B.1090400@googlemail.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Elwyn Davies" , "Qin Wu" Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:34:16 -0000 I have entered these in the RFC Editor note.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:24 PM > To: Qin Wu > Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- > lr@tools.ietf.org; Glen Zorn; > Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >=20 > Hi. >=20 > That seems to improved things except: >=20 > s1, para 1: The 'itself' is still unclear as to what it refers to. > suggest s/itself/the same Mobile Access Gateway/. >=20 > s5.1, para 3: s/indicating Direct routing/indicating direct routing/ >=20 > Regards, > Elwyn >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 22/02/12 06:25, Qin Wu wrote: > > Dan: > > > > We have fixed this part in the new version -10. > > > > Regards! > > -Qin > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" > > To:;; lr@tools.ietf.org> > > Cc: "Glen Zorn"; "Russ Housley > "" > > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:01 PM > > Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > > > > > > Document editors, > > > > Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by > > Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor? > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM > >> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > >> Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- > >> lr@tools.ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > >> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > >> > >> Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, > >> > >> The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on > >> v07 > >> as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits > >> *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 > which > > I > >> ought to be improved. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Elwyn > >> > >> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >>> Hi Glen, > >>> > >>> The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the > >>> shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior > > to > >> a > >>> telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do > all > >>> changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's > >> done, > >>> but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will > >> need > >>> to issue yet another version. > >>> > >>> Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards, > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM > >>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > >>>> Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley" > >>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- > >>>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > >>>> > >>>> On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > >>>>> Document editors, > >>>>> > >>>>> Can you please check what is the status of these comments? > > Please > >> do > >>>> not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but > > wait > >>>> until after the telechat to issue a revised version. > >>>> Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any > >>> case, > >>>> a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. > >>>> > >>>>> Thanks and Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Dan > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf > >>>> Of Russ Housley > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM > >>>>> To: The IESG > >>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; > >> elwynd@dial.pipex.com; > >>>> dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org > >>>>> Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: > >>> (with > >>>> DISCUSS) > >>>>> Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > >>>>> draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss > >>>>> > >>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > > to > >>> all > >>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > >> cut > >>>> this > >>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) > >>>>> > >>>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- > >>>> criteria.html > >>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> - > >>>>> DISCUSS: > >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> - > >>>>> > >>>>> The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen- > >> ART > >>>>> Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not > >> been > >>>>> posted yet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> DiME mailing list > >>>>> DiME@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> DiME mailing list > >>> DiME@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From elwynd@googlemail.com Wed Feb 22 07:30:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EBE21F87BA for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oh26od-03hWm for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1056121F86AF for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by bkuw12 with SMTP id w12so184803bku.31 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of elwynd@googlemail.com designates 10.204.153.195 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.153.195; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of elwynd@googlemail.com designates 10.204.153.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=elwynd@googlemail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elwynd@googlemail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.204.153.195]) by 10.204.153.195 with SMTP id l3mr16385844bkw.123.1329924610214 (num_hops = 1); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pJwWF+IgP2lGAignvDi0IAaYyC+Zx/8yEurRT3NnBZw=; b=gr4IItm6nN8r9+TTSI1+mW3QqiELAZSk1S0VYfFcSCGVtlu1YuRzJx9/+e/5HWXulW xA1qskNlblHDu+Khpi0MODJPIkTJcRtHJ9YNhJC8bzVgjqGj9lA6clOkjdcdKvONKxbg Ee33ihKNTlA5kBKT9MJjcD34EsM69sKE8uOOc= Received: by 10.204.153.195 with SMTP id l3mr13245656bkw.123.1329924610097; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.125.5.123] (fawlty.dsg.cs.tcd.ie. [134.226.36.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ez5sm52345292bkc.15.2012.02.22.07.30.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:30:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4509FE.1000907@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:30:06 +0000 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> <4F44EC8B.1090400@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:02:32 -0800 Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:30:30 -0000 On 22/02/12 14:34, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I have entered these in the RFC Editor note. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan Fine. Regards, Elwyn > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:24 PM >> To: Qin Wu >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- >> lr@tools.ietf.org; Glen Zorn; >> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >> >> Hi. >> >> That seems to improved things except: >> >> s1, para 1: The 'itself' is still unclear as to what it refers to. >> suggest s/itself/the same Mobile Access Gateway/. >> >> s5.1, para 3: s/indicating Direct routing/indicating direct routing/ >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn >> >> >> >> On 22/02/12 06:25, Qin Wu wrote: >>> Dan: >>> >>> We have fixed this part in the new version -10. >>> >>> Regards! >>> -Qin >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" >>> To:;;> lr@tools.ietf.org> >>> Cc: "Glen Zorn"; "Russ Housley >> "" >>> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:01 PM >>> Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>> >>> Document editors, >>> >>> Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by >>> Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor? >>> >>> Thanks and Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM >>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>>> Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- >>>> lr@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >>>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>>> >>>> Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, >>>> >>>> The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised > on >>>> v07 >>>> as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits >>>> *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 >> which >>> I >>>> ought to be improved. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Elwyn >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>> Hi Glen, >>>>> >>>>> The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the >>>>> shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior >>> to >>>> a >>>>> telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do >> all >>>>> changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's >>>> done, >>>>> but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you > will >>>> need >>>>> to issue yet another version. >>>>> >>>>> Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM >>>>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>>>>> Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley" >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on > draft-ietf-dime- >>>>>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>>>> Document editors, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please check what is the status of these comments? >>> Please >>>> do >>>>>> not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but >>> wait >>>>>> until after the telechat to issue a revised version. >>>>>> Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any >>>>> case, >>>>>> a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> Behalf >>>>>> Of Russ Housley >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM >>>>>>> To: The IESG >>>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; >>>> elwynd@dial.pipex.com; >>>>>> dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>> Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: >>>>> (with >>>>>> DISCUSS) >>>>>>> Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for >>>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >>> to >>>>> all >>>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >>>> cut >>>>>> this >>>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- >>>>>> criteria.html >>>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>>> The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the > Gen- >>>> ART >>>>>>> Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not >>>> been >>>>>>> posted yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> DiME mailing list >>>>>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> DiME mailing list >>>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From bill.wu@huawei.com Wed Feb 22 17:23:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C8521E801D for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:23:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9sFxCsmYzSjn for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:23:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CC321E8013 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZT000L6NULF5@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZT0013NNUL1Y@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml210-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHI22543; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:11 +0800 Received: from SZXEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) by szxeml210-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.183) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:21:55 +0800 Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.149) by szxeml410-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:08 +0800 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:07 +0800 From: Qin Wu X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149] To: Elwyn Davies Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <4F39EDA5.2050407@gmail.com> <1329471214.4220.15063.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk> <6F0039A1830B416FB749B2EC07EC34B9@china.huawei.com> <4F44EC8B.1090400@googlemail.com> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:23:19 -0000 Hi, Elwyn: Your proposed change looks good to me. Thanks! Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elwyn Davies" To: "Qin Wu" Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" ; ; ; "Glen Zorn" ; Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) > Hi. > > That seems to improved things except: > > s1, para 1: The 'itself' is still unclear as to what it refers to. > suggest s/itself/the same Mobile Access Gateway/. > > s5.1, para 3: s/indicating Direct routing/indicating direct routing/ > > Regards, > Elwyn > > > > On 22/02/12 06:25, Qin Wu wrote: >> Dan: >> >> We have fixed this part in the new version -10. >> >> Regards! >> -Qin >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" >> To:;; >> Cc: "Glen Zorn"; "Russ Housley "" >> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:01 PM >> Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >> >> >> Document editors, >> >> Do you have any problem with fixing the editorial nits brought up by >> Elwyn within the note to the RFC Editor? >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: The Master [mailto:elwynd@googlemail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:34 AM >>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>> Cc: Glen Zorn; Russ Housley "; dime@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dime-pmip6- >>> lr@tools.ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>> >>> Hi, Russ, Dan and authors, >>> >>> The latest version (v09) addresses the minor issues that I raised on >>> v07 >>> as discussed with Qin. However I observe that the editorial nits >>> *didn't* get fixed, especially the comment about 'itself' in s1 which >> I >>> ought to be improved. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elwyn >>> >>> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 08:51 +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>> Hi Glen, >>>> >>>> The change control of I-Ds submitted to the IESG belongs to the >>>> shepherding AD. I prefer to hold submissions during the week prior >> to >>> a >>>> telechat so that all ADs review the same version, and editors do all >>>> changes at once after the telechat. Now that you submitted, it's >>> done, >>>> but in case other ADs enter DISCUSSes that require changes you will >>> need >>>> to issue yet another version. >>>> >>>> Russ, Elwyn, can you please check if you concerns were answered? >>>> >>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:14 AM >>>>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >>>>> Cc: dime@ietf.org; "@tools.ietf.org>"; Russ Housley" >>>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime- >>>>> pmip6-lr-09: (with DISCUSS) >>>>> >>>>> On 2/14/2012 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>>> Document editors, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you please check what is the status of these comments? >> Please >>> do >>>>> not make a change now, even if all comments were accepted, but >> wait >>>>> until after the telechat to issue a revised version. >>>>> Your message and Russ's DISCUSS seem to be contradictory. In any >>>> case, >>>>> a revision was posted last night, long before the DISCUSS. >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf >>>>> Of Russ Housley >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:55 AM >>>>>> To: The IESG >>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org; >>> elwynd@dial.pipex.com; >>>>> dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: >>>> (with >>>>> DISCUSS) >>>>>> Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for >>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-09: Discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply >> to >>>> all >>>>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to >>> cut >>>>> this >>>>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss- >>>>> criteria.html >>>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>>> DISCUSS: >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> - >>>>>> >>>>>> The authors have agreed to make some changes based on the Gen- >>> ART >>>>>> Review by Elwyn Davies on 2-Feb-2012. The changes have not >>> been >>>>>> posted yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> DiME mailing list >>>>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> DiME mailing list >>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Mon Feb 27 01:47:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7262621F8618 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f30MbF7ppKVO for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A070821F860B for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by lagj5 with SMTP id j5so1837397lag.31 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jouni.nospam@gmail.com designates 10.152.135.148 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.152.135.148; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jouni.nospam@gmail.com designates 10.152.135.148 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jouni.nospam@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=jouni.nospam@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.152.135.148]) by 10.152.135.148 with SMTP id ps20mr8786292lab.20.1330336022728 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=F/H06pf6dbXIFegJJoJDlJGbYxSO05A1Iv2fL1tKg8E=; b=wgoPvbgUKXfcC43UR94SlqXrYbSYYEfm6lzO2iZI+vDCsWZKQytr18hcvrWcBcgcZA U/seQCiKqHal4vc+kksDsgfBFeRZQ54Vjl6m6/c0unYALw0Zg7mQVkxEPFuKpwBOz3MJ lWcfdid7eXxirLKbRPyuA/l/2AB3atOWjPfG8= Received: by 10.152.135.148 with SMTP id ps20mr7408124lab.20.1330336022679; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-114-174-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-174-162.elisa-laajakaista.fi. [88.114.174.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pd3sm13157171lab.14.2012.02.27.01.47.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:47:02 -0800 (PST) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:46:58 +0200 Message-Id: <9FBF870D-27E5-4AD2-8B2F-E96C6978BFA4@gmail.com> To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Agenda call for Dime meeting in IETF#83 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:47:04 -0000 Folks, Our WG meeting has been scheduled to Thursday afternoon session II, which means we have 2h slot. If you want to have a presentation slot, send a request to the chairs with abstract, your I-D name, time needed and why you think the presentation is needed. - Jouni & Lionel From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Mon Feb 27 05:28:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7917221F8707 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqAd1-IoSrzB for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F367321F86E8 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz17 with SMTP id wz17so764454pbc.31 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com designates 10.68.189.100 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.68.189.100; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com designates 10.68.189.100 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.68.189.100]) by 10.68.189.100 with SMTP id gh4mr15536762pbc.106.1330349320851 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=167glJcqM4mUC1CUWjdE0gNrHSdxJWkdZwbq9RQT2UQ=; b=wAEJhzE0L2rygVM+cvNi9uNUMFQO9I4CHwu3/SAbyR3jxrwoiMjYob4M3RtcgDX5It /n4tM52zkFMJOrQjm4Mfy65a5sef/n2rta+wSTwbRPomfAKIhwQKf62jDCVPCugZf82N gnWNPAzcRA0GknijMbZIRZIz/jIdYP+xyasWY= Received: by 10.68.189.100 with SMTP id gh4mr13487761pbc.106.1330349320802; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([216.254.195.91]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q8sm12736583pbi.1.2012.02.27.05.28.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:28:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F4B8507.2010500@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:28:39 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jouni korhonen References: <9FBF870D-27E5-4AD2-8B2F-E96C6978BFA4@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9FBF870D-27E5-4AD2-8B2F-E96C6978BFA4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120227-0, 27/02/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: dime@ietf.org, dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Agenda call for Dime meeting in IETF#83 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:28:41 -0000 I'd better present the comments on and changes to realm-based routing, so we can decide whether the document can advance. Tom Taylor On 27/02/2012 4:46 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > > Folks, > > Our WG meeting has been scheduled to Thursday afternoon session II, which > means we have 2h slot. If you want to have a presentation slot, send a > request to the chairs with abstract, your I-D name, time needed and why > you think the presentation is needed. > > - Jouni& Lionel > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > From miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com Mon Feb 27 06:12:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFAE21F8720 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:12:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNUZgjQ6lyz5 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:12:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E790F21F871E for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:12:00 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7bb7ae0000007b2-3a-4f4b8f2fa846 Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 72.B1.01970.F2F8B4F4; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:12:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from [159.107.24.214] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4B8F2E.4070604@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:11:58 +0100 From: "Miguel A. Garcia" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Subject: [Dime] Comments on Diameter NAT control -13 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:12:01 -0000 Hi: I was doing a review of earlier versions of the Diameter NAT control draft for the Gen-ART team. And I have been in touch with the authors, keeping an eye to this draft. I would like to share one of the comments with other members of the working group to see if the WG can better get an opinion. - NCR demultiplexor. As I understand, the NCR command has three main functions: create or update a binding, remove a binding, or query for a binding. At the moment there is not a single AVP that clearly indicates the function of the command. A server has to inspect the presence of the NAT-Control-Install to see if this is a create or update (the difference between create an update is given by the NCR-Request-Type AVP). Or the presence of the NAT-Control-Remove to see that this is a remove. Or the NCR-Request-Type set to QUERY_REQUEST to see that this is a query. I was arguing that is a good protocol design practice to have clear and easily expandable semantics in messages. In this case, there is no clear semantics of the NCR command. The receiver of this command should inspect NCR-Request-Type and NAT-Control-Remove to find out what this is all about. This mechanism also poses a future problem, if an application needs to add additional semantics to NCR. So, I was recommending to have a single AVP that clearly denotes the function of the NCR command What do the WG think about? /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain From fbrockne@cisco.com Tue Feb 28 08:34:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1067321F854B for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:34:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHVQtxBwWzsf for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:34:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E55121F84E2 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:34:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fbrockne@cisco.com; l=5484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330446883; x=1331656483; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=/oM7mkkzFXyMKy65U58zxFuRpPcM3dmeHgclIu7h/CM=; b=Qic+szgVjjFO7i/KaGfsB2rr0flCJOlaj4yvBWHdjhsGYH1sGsz9ziBL I5P+azAiT/Yc6Elz58EKaPZvzZxUpozxjQkYj3OLkLWd0hywmJJ7dDwV0 I/N+bCmV9dI100ce/bEmjz7L6AGUUo+rDe7CKH0egWpIf//l4wlDHZBJU w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAGABTU+Q/khM/2dsb2JhbAA5CrNkgQeBdwEBAQQBAQEPAR0KMgIIDwQCAQgRBAEBCwYXAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCBEJh2YLoQABlysEiXoEgn0HAwIGAgQFAQQHBgEDAkEUhU4BGAYagkljBKgwgVMI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,497,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="130850317" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2012 16:34:42 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1SGYg5I032571; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:34:42 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-106.cisco.com ([144.254.74.81]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:34:42 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC07C40C61@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4F4B8F2E.4070604@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Comments on Diameter NAT control -13 Thread-Index: Acz1WdL1mXEyVVxCRfu7OErytp+tpAA13itw References: <4F4B8F2E.4070604@ericsson.com> From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: "Miguel A. Garcia" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2012 16:34:42.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF301940:01CCF636] Subject: Re: [Dime] Comments on Diameter NAT control -13 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:34:45 -0000 Hi Miguel, thanks for your email and also thanks for brining the discussion to the list. IMHO there are two different views, depending on what you identify as the entity that DNCA manages. Right now the managed entity is the _session_ associated with an endpoint. To manage the life-cycle of a session one would need to be able to a) initialize/create it b) update parameters associated with the session c) terminate it d) query the state of one or multiple sessions The NCR command currently handles a), b), and d) - and the action is indicated using a single de-multiplexer, the NC-Request-Type AVP. a) is served by INITIAL_REQUEST, b) by UPDATE_REQUEST, and d) by QUERY_REQUEST. c) is served by the normal STA command. Updating a session could include adding bindings, removing bindings, changing the maximum number of binding supported on a session. What kind of update actions are needed are determined by the AVPs present in an update request. This obviously means that you need to evaluate all the AVPs in the NCR/Update-Request message. If a future revision of the protocol would require additional parameters to be managed on a session (think of e.g. managing the timeouts for bindings on a per-endpoint basis), we'd just add the additional AVP - changes to the protocol would be relatively small - though an implementation would of course need to evaluate yet another AVP. In your email below you inspire a somewhat different approach. You seem to hint at making the different objects kept at NAT-device the managed entity for DNCA. Those objects at the NAT-devices are obviously the NAT-bindings, but are not limited to bindings, because we also manage other objects such as the maximum amount of bindings allowed for a particular endpoint.=20 If we'd follow this logic then we some form of "command" to install, update, and remove these objects at the NAT-device. These commands would not be limited to individual bindings, but should equally apply to other objects such as the Max-NAT-Bindings. That said, the need for managing the session (e.g. query the state) does not disappear. This means that you'd need to differentiate between=20 - session level commands (init, update, terminate, query) and - for the specific use of "update" a session, implement either a specific de-multiplexer or add additional commands Given that an implementation would need to check the validity of a message in any case, would adding a multiplexer AVP - for the use within "update" - really add much? This multiplexer would likely come in the form of a bit-mask, with a bit for "NAT-Control-Install AVP present", "NAT-Control-Remove AVP present", etc. - and the bit-mask should be long enough so that we can leave room for future additions (think of the timeout example above). All the bit mask AVP would do is off-load us from checking all the AVPs - though, per what I said above, you likely need to check all the AVPs in any case to do a validity check on the message, hence I'm not sure what we gain here. The other alternative would be to add additional commands per parameter, e.g. UPDATE-ADD-BINDING, UPDATE-REMOVE-BINDING, UPDATE-CHANGE-MAX_BINDINGS... etc. - though this would make extensions more difficult - and at the same time would no longer allow us to change multiple parameters/objects of an endpoint session with a single command (i.e. add bindings and remove binding and change max-bindings). Thoughts? Thanks, Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Miguel > A. Garcia > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:12 PM > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [Dime] Comments on Diameter NAT control -13 >=20 > Hi: >=20 > I was doing a review of earlier versions of the Diameter NAT control > draft for the Gen-ART team. And I have been in touch with the authors, > keeping an eye to this draft. >=20 > I would like to share one of the comments with other members of the > working group to see if the WG can better get an opinion. >=20 > - NCR demultiplexor. > As I understand, the NCR command has three main functions: create or > update a binding, remove a binding, or query for a binding. At the moment > there is not a single AVP that clearly indicates the function of the > command. A server has to inspect the presence of the NAT-Control-Install > to see if this is a create or update (the difference between create an > update is given by the NCR-Request-Type AVP). Or the presence of the > NAT-Control-Remove to see that this is a remove. Or the NCR-Request-Type > set to QUERY_REQUEST to see that this is a query. >=20 >=20 > I was arguing that is a good protocol design practice to have clear and > easily expandable semantics in messages. In this case, there is no clear > semantics of the NCR command. The receiver of this command should inspect > NCR-Request-Type and NAT-Control-Remove to find out what this is all about. >=20 > This mechanism also poses a future problem, if an application needs to > add additional semantics to NCR. So, I was recommending to have a single > AVP that clearly denotes the function of the NCR command >=20 > What do the WG think about? >=20 > /Miguel > -- > Miguel A. Garcia > +34-91-339-3608 > Ericsson Spain > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From kprasad@sandvine.com Wed Feb 29 22:26:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF0F21E802F for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:26:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zy0pM8WJwDQd for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:26:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (Mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.134]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F9521E801E for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from blr-exch-1.sandvine.com (10.30.4.60) by WTL-EXCH-1.sandvine.com (192.168.196.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:26:43 -0500 Received: from BLR-EXCH-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d]) by blr-exch-1.sandvine.com ([fe80::b896:bd62:3a8d:e51d%16]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:56:41 +0530 From: Krishna Prasad To: "dime@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: wrong diameter Identity in CEA Thread-Index: Acz3dEObmyI/SGtSSsC+/7A6rM5NeA== Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 06:26:41 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.30.10.45] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E67CF71840blrexch1sandvin_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dime] wrong diameter Identity in CEA X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:26:46 -0000 --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E67CF71840blrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, The base RFC (and also the bis) says that if a CER is received from an = unexpected peer (wrong diameter identity in Orig host AVP) CEA will be sent= with unknown peer error. But if the diameter Identity in CEA is wrong (i.e. the initiator is expecti= ng some other identity in CEA) what is the expected behavior; does the node= silently close the connection or this is not at all an error? I think RFC = is silent on this. Regards Prasad. --_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E67CF71840blrexch1sandvin_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All,

    The base RFC (and also the bis) s= ays that if a CER is received from an unexpected peer (wrong diameter ident= ity in Orig host AVP) CEA will be sent with unknown peer error.<= /p>

But if the diameter Identity in CEA is wrong (i.e. t= he initiator is expecting some other identity in CEA) what is the expected = behavior; does the node silently close the connection or this is not at all= an error? I think RFC is silent on this.

 

Regards

Prasad.

--_000_BD10179EF7D5DF49986CE3BD4FFF14E67CF71840blrexch1sandvin_--