: RFC-to-be 4004 == "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application"

Hello folks,

I regret that I didn't say which document this
is referring to!

It is the "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application".

Ahhh, Friday...

Regards,
Charlie P.



"Charles E. Perkins" wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> Recently, we received notice that RFC 4004 was about
> to be published, and entered the "48 hours" comment period.
> I had not paid much attention to the document until that
> point, but was asked to finally read through it carefully.
> After reading it, I made the following suggestions (among
> others which were considered even more editorial), and
> then it was suggested that I send them to the mailing list
> to see if there were any objections.
> 
> If not, then I think the corrections could be submitted
> and the document published very soon.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> PS. I can supply the instances of one or two sentences
>        if the desired change is approved.
> 
> =================================================
> 
>             ...          I would like to see the
> document changed in the following ways, but not at the
> risk of delaying its progress.        .....
> 
> In section 4.1.1, it is stated that certain actions MUST be
> taken if AAAH is stateful, and that certain other actions
> occur otherwise.  There is no way to enforce the MUST.
> Thus, it is pointless.  Non-conformance cannot be detected.
> It does not affect interoperability.  Overall, I think the
> mandate ought to be reduced in force to a SHOULD,
> or conceivably a MAY.  In fact, it could potentially be
> eliminated entirely.
> 
> At the top of page 23, something is said about destroying
> "all" session keys.  It should be explicitly specified just WHEN
> this action of deallocating all the MN's "resources" actually
> occurs.  Clearly, it's not when the session keys expire!
> (or... ???)
> 
> I do not understand what "*" means for certain AVPs in the
> lists of required AVPs for the new AAA commands.
> Surely it's part of the Diameter vernacular, and thus familiar
> to one steeped in the lore.  But nevertheless I think for good
> document cleanliness, the meaning of the "*" should be
> repeated somewhere in this document.  It would only take
> one sentence.
> 
> The name "Foreign-Home-Agent-Available" is clunky.
> I would prefer "Visited-Home-Agent-Available".
> 
> The difference between two of the flags is not immediately
> obvious, and in fact I had to skip around in the document
> to figure it out (I think I get the point now).
>            8   Foreign-Home-Agent-Available
>            128 Home-Agent-In-Foreign-Network
> It would be nice to have a sentence or two explaining
> this, perhaps around the first time that the feature vector
> itself is introduced.
> 
> In section 7.7, there is mention of a "RADIUS-style"
> computation.  This needs a citation to the relevant
> document specifying the computation.
> 
>          .........
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.