Subject: [Dime] comments on http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-00.txt

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:13:47 +0700

Last sentence of the Abstract, s/causes/caused.

Last sentence of Section 1 says:
	This document has as a goal providing in advance the change in the
command codes allocation policy, so that
   	interoperability problems as the ones described above are avoided as
soon as possible.
Suggest changing to:
	This document has as a goal providing in advance the change in the
command codes allocation policy made in {reference to rfc3588bis}, 
	so that interoperability problems such as those mentioned above may
be avoided as much as possible.
Reason: no description is given of any interoperability problems.

Question: section 4, paragraph 2 says "The values 0-255 (0x00-0xff) are
reserved for RADIUS backward compatibility" ; strictly speaking, for
backwards compatibility, shouldn't only those command codes that mapped
directly to RADIUS messages at the time RFC3588 was published be reserved?
Otherwise, it's forward compatibility, too...

Section 4, paragraph 3 says "The request to IANA for a Vendor-Specific
Command Code SHOULD include a reference to a publicly available
specification which documents the command in sufficient detail to aid in
interoperability between independent implementations."  The word "aid" seems
a little weak to me; how about "provide for"?

The body of the RADTYPE reference appears to be poorly formatted.
~gwz

Play assigns meaning to human activity--work erases it.
  -- P.L. Wilson