Re: [Dime] WGLC Comments on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-17.txt, pp. 21-30

[Victor Fajardo <vfajardo at research.telcordia.com>]

> TECHNICAL
>
> Section 2
> ---------
> I don't really understand this section, nor even why it is included  For
> example:
>
>    Diameter Clients MUST support the base protocol, which includes
>    accounting.  In addition, they MUST fully support each Diameter
>    application that is needed to implement the client's service, e.g.,
>    NASREQ and/or Mobile IPv4.  A Diameter Client that does not support
>    both NASREQ and Mobile IPv4, MUST be referred to as "Diameter X
>    Client" where X is the application which it supports, and not a
>    "Diameter Client".
>
> There are a ton of Diameter applications; what's so special about NASREQ &
> MIPv4?  Even if there is a rationale for keeping this part of the original
> text, section 2 in bis doesn't seem like any improvement of section 2 of RFC
> 3588.
>   

I definitely agree. NASREQ and Mobile IPv4 should be struck out in the 
last sentence. Pls check out the latest draft rev for the updated text.

-- victor