Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:13:18 -0700

I give up, why do 3588 & 4004 need to be revised?
 
...
both RFC 3588 and 4004 needs to be revised to reflect that, I think the harm for that is minimal anyway, given the fairly rare deployment of 4004 (I think).
...
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Madjid Nakhjiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:28:33 -0700

Hi Glen,

Don't give up so easily, we need you here :-)

As I said earlier, 3588 has a little table defining the 5 App IDs, including
a App ID for Mobile IP. So far we 4004 on MIP4 and I am guessing we will
have 1 or 2 specs for MIP6. Avi suggests defining a new App ID for MIP6, I
agree with him, but I am weighing the consequences, one of which is how can
you have one App ID for Mobile IP, and another for Mobile IPv6. So there are
two choices if we define a new App ID for MIP6:

1)     take App ID table out of 3588

2)     revise Mobile IP to Mobile IPv4 in 3588

Both of which can count as revisions, don't you think? Seems that the group
is revising 3588 anyway (tell me if I misunderstood), and in that case, this
is a minor change.

Madjid

  _____  

From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:13 AM
To: Madjid Nakhjiri; Avi Lior; Julien Bournelle
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

...

both RFC 3588 and 4004 needs to be revised to reflect that, I think the harm
for that is minimal anyway, given the fairly rare deployment of 4004 (I
think).

...

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:32:07 +0300

3588 defines the initial IANA registry, not the complete registry.  A
new Diameter App spec can define a new App ID.  
 
John

________________________________

	From: ext Madjid Nakhjiri [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 15 August, 2006 20:29
	To: 'Glen Zorn (gwz)'; 'Avi Lior'; 'Julien Bournelle'
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

	Hi Glen,

	As I said earlier, 3588 has a little table defining the 5 App
IDs, including a App ID for Mobile IP. So far we 4004 on MIP4 and I am
guessing we will have 1 or 2 specs for MIP6. Avi suggests defining a new
App ID for MIP6, I agree with him, but I am weighing the consequences,
one of which is how can you have one App ID for Mobile IP, and another
for Mobile IPv6. So there are two choices if we define a new App ID for
MIP6:

	Both of which can count as revisions, don't you think? Seems
that the group is revising 3588 anyway (tell me if I misunderstood), and
in that case, this is a minor change.

	Madjid

________________________________

	...

	both RFC 3588 and 4004 needs to be revised to reflect that, I
think the harm for that is minimal anyway, given the fairly rare
deployment of 4004 (I think).

	...