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

From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:57:13 -0700

Glen,

Glen Zorn wrote:

"Nonsense, again.  The normative reference for a number is the document in which that numbers usage is defined; it must be so since the IANA is just a registry containing neither syntactic nor semantic information regarding the entries.  In fact the IANA entries for the first 4 Diameter app IDs reference RFC 3588."

Doesn't IANA own the numbers?

Second, dont you think that the fact that IANA refences RFC 3588 for those numbers (NASREQ and MIPv4) is wrong since RFC3588 does not define the syntactic nor semantic information regarding those enteries. 
 
Doesn't it define the syntax/semantic of an (any) Application-ID? 

I am not suggesting that we need to "bis" 3588 because of a new application.  I was suggesting that if were were to update 3588 because of a new application we should remove those applications ids from 3588 so that we dont get into a discussion in the future whereby some newbie suggests that we update 3588 to reflect new application ids. 
 
Rather than modifying RFCs, I would prefer that the WG Chair(s) refer the questioner (newbie or veteran) to the archives & move the discussion along.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ]
Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 1:54 PM
To: Avi Lior; Madjid Nakhjiri; Julien Bournelle
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

...

 I think that RFC3588 should not define any application ids.  If it does they should be informative.

Nonsense.  Various numbers have been defined in RFCs (with the assignment of future numbers left to the IANA) for literally years: somehow developers have found the right numbers to use & the Internet has survived.  I realize that there is a trend to turn RFCs into tutorials for uni freshmen and bellheads but this is getting ridiculous.  If you need even more clarity, the IANA entry for Diameter Application ID 2 identifies it as representing "Mobile IP v4".  

So if we are going to change 3588 we should remove any reference to any Application IDs.

IANA should be the only authoritative (normative) entity for Application IDS.

Nonsense, again.  The normative reference for a number is the document in which that numbers usage is defined; it must be so since the IANA is just a registry containing neither syntactic nor semantic information regarding the entries.  In fact the IANA entries for the first 4 Diameter app IDs reference RFC 3588. 

...

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply listening to John Coltrane?
  -- Henry Gabriel

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

---

From: Madjid Nakhjiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:45:12 -0700

Hi Glen

The discussion was whether we use App ID or Service_Type for MIP6 and I
think the current thread at least shows people want App ID.

Madjid

  _____  

From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:57 AM
To: Avi Lior; Madjid Nakhjiri; Julien Bournelle
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

Glen,

Glen Zorn wrote:

"Nonsense, again.  The normative reference for a number is the document in
which that numbers usage is defined; it must be so since the IANA is just a
registry containing neither syntactic nor semantic information regarding the
entries.  In fact the IANA entries for the first 4 Diameter app IDs
reference RFC 3588."

Second, dont you think that the fact that IANA refences RFC 3588 for those
numbers (NASREQ and MIPv4) is wrong since RFC3588 does not define the
syntactic nor semantic information regarding those enteries. 

I am not suggesting that we need to "bis" 3588 because of a new application.
I was suggesting that if were were to update 3588 because of a new
application we should remove those applications ids from 3588 so that we
dont get into a discussion in the future whereby some newbie suggests that
we update 3588 to reflect new application ids. 

Rather than modifying RFCs, I would prefer that the WG Chair(s) refer the
questioner (newbie or veteran) to the archives & move the discussion along.

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [ <mailto:[email-masked]> mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 1:54 PM
To: Avi Lior; Madjid Nakhjiri; Julien Bournelle
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 App ID/ revise RFC 3588???

...

 I think that RFC3588 should not define any application ids.  If it does
they should be informative.

Nonsense.  Various numbers have been defined in RFCs (with the assignment of
future numbers left to the IANA) for literally years: somehow developers
have found the right numbers to use & the Internet has survived.  I realize
that there is a trend to turn RFCs into tutorials for uni freshmen and
bellheads but this is getting ridiculous.  If you need even more clarity,
the IANA entry for Diameter Application ID 2 identifies it as representing
"Mobile IP v4".  

So if we are going to change 3588 we should remove any reference to any
Application IDs.

IANA should be the only authoritative (normative) entity for Application
IDS.

Nonsense, again.  The normative reference for a number is the document in
which that numbers usage is defined; it must be so since the IANA is just a
registry containing neither syntactic nor semantic information regarding the
entries.  In fact the IANA entries for the first 4 Diameter app IDs
reference RFC 3588. 

...

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
listening to John Coltrane?
  -- Henry Gabriel