Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

To: <mark.jones at bridgewatersystems.com>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
From: "Glen Zorn" <gwz at net-zen.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:08:19 +0700
Cc: dime at ietf.org
Delivered-to: dime at core3.amsl.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>
Organization: Network Zen
Thread-index: AcpYf7znSwDgO6bjRlKTgL/vBZDTXw==

Hi, Mark.  I've been reconstructing the latest (unpublished) version of
th8is draft & going through the archives to make sure that the new rev will
cover all the comments.  Anyway, at some point in the past you wrote "I have
reviewed this draft and only have one comment: The dbpPeerVendorId should be
Unsigned32 rather than enumerated INTEGER."  I see that I agreed to this
change, but I'm wondering what the rationale might be...

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
  - From: Mark Jones
- Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
  - From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)

Prev by Date: [Dime] FW: WG Review: Recharter of Handover Keying (hokey)
Next by Date: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
Previous by thread: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
Next by thread: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-00

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