[Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005-bis

Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca> Wed, 12 January 2011 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@azu.ca>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB7D3A6A43 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:57:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JEKVcEQAjlhf for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937693A67D8 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so758045qwi.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:00:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.84.203 with SMTP id k11mr942170qcl.281.1294848011405; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.219.197 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:00:11 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyN_Bk0QY9Trq+_O-GWYG8d9mEriDmtAFv+9ux@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Jones <mark@azu.ca>
To: dime@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005-bis
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:57:53 -0000

(The issue tracker tool doesn't want seem to create account for me so
I'm posting here.)

>From the diff with rfc4005, I realize my comments relate to the
original text rather than Glen's changes but I think they're valid
candidates for the bis.

---
Section 3.9.  Accounting-Request (ACR) Command

"Either the Acct-Application-Id AVP or the Vendor-Specific-
Application-Id AVP MUST be present."

mj> I understand that the Acct-Application-Id is required for
backwards compatibility (it is still redundant since the same app id
is in the command header) but don't see why
Vendor-Specific-Application-Id would ever need be present. The same
comment applies to Section 3.10.

---
Section 4.1.1.  QoSFilterRule

"The QosFilterRule format is derived from the OctetString AVP Base
Format.  It uses the ASCII charset."

mj> RFC5777 defines Diameter AVPs that represent QoS and IP filter
rules and even includes a NASREQ example. I'd like to see the
ASCII-based variants deprecated but even if that idea doesn't fly, I
think it would be useful to mention RFC5777 here as offering an
alternative.

---
Section 4.2.5.  Called-Station-Id AVP

"It SHOULD only be present in authentication
and/or authorization requests."

mj> Why is this recommendation here? This AVP is commonly used in
RADIUS accounting requests. Same comment for Calling-Station-Id AVP in
Section 4.2.6.

---
Section 4.5.8.  Tunnel-Assignment-Id AVP

mj> s/should/SHOULD/g
mj> Last paragraph appears to be missing normative statements in the
first two sentences. Was this intentional?

Regards
Mark