Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number

To: "dime at ietf.org" <dime at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
From: Avi Lior <avi at bridgewatersystems.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:33:48 -0400
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivered-to: dime at core3.amsl.com
In-reply-to: <D6824C8074596B4E9CA38F6A62454F5C0A40013C7D at exchange02.bridgewatersys.com>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <49D393C2.8060200 at tari.toshiba.com>, <D6824C8074596B4E9CA38F6A62454F5C0A40013C7D at exchange02.bridgewatersys.com>
Thread-index: Acmy5YBxwCqcIoksS7Kul1XUVjq2VwAq7AFQAAvlK4M=
Thread-topic: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number

The summary correctly captures the discussion.

I support keeping 3588bis at version 1. 

I would support adding a Diameter v2 work item to the charter.

Furthermore, we should identify the areas that need to be enhanced by way of problem statements into a single draft or a set of drafts.

A design team or teams should then tackle the solutions space.

Avi

References:
- [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
  - From: Victor Fajardo
- Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
  - From: Mark Jones

Prev by Date: Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
Next by Date: Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
Previous by thread: Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [Dime] rfc3588bis version number

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.