: Diameter MIP Application [Fwd: Re: Corrections to RFC-to-be 4004]

I haven't seen any responses - does this mean that there is no support for
these changes, or that noone opposes these changes?  I'd like some feedback
from people who care about the Diameter MIP application.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> ext Charles E. Perkins
> Sent: 29 April, 2005 22:08
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [AAA-WG]: [Fwd: Re: Corrections to RFC-to-be 4004]
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>