RE: [Dime] 3588-bis

["Tolga Asveren" <asveren at ulticom.com>]

Hi John,


Just my two cents:

1)I also believe that it is a good idea to clean up/fix first, what is
already defined, with focused text changes. Especially for the bis document,
this may be all what is needed.

2)OTOH, there may be featues, which are not currently defined in RFC3588 but
which are usefull for certain real-life deployment cases. Rather than ending
up with multiple proprietary -and non-interoperable- solutions, it could be
nice to standardize them . I hope WG will have time/interest at least to
discuss such concerns as well -not necessarily as part of the bis effort-.

3)RFC3588 11 "IANA Considerations" addresses extensibility of Diameter
protocol, but more from defining new objects point of view, e.g. defining
new applications. I was wondering, what the approach should be when
fixing/adding stuff for the base protocol itself. Actually not big deal,
hopefully we will have some feeling about that, once we start to discuss the
issues.

4)IMHO, it could be good to start discussing issues on the mailing list. It
may be the case that a good number of people which actually implemented the
protocol couldn't/wouldn't make it to IETF meeting.

    Thanks,
    Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: john.loughney at nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney at nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 5:14 AM
> To: dime at ietf.org
> Subject: [Dime] 3588-bis
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We've discussed both a 3588-bis (Diameter Base) & a 4005-bis (NASREQ).
> Before starting to produce such
> documents, I would like to get some feedback on some ground-rules.
>
> IANA considerations in 3588 explain the mechanisms to extend Diameter.
> As there are existing deployments of Diameter, I think we should not add
> new features to 3588-bis, just focusing on either removing features that
> are not used and correcting mistakes.
>
> I'd like discussion to be very focused, having proposed text changes.
> General statements like "wouldn't it be nice if feature x could do
> this?" aren't very helpful.
>
> I think that we should spend time in Montreal talking about this - I
> think we should prepare a list of issues with 3588.  There are a number
> of issues in the issue tracker, I suggest we start from that.
>
> comments?
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime