Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #19: Tunnel-Assignment-Id AVP

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:46:48 +0700

On 11/30/2011 5:56 PM, jouni korhonen wrote:
> 
> And the reasoning behind is?

OK,I give: how many different reasons could there be?  I can only think
of one: the text is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, that is,
no rationale is required for acting differently and Diameter
interoperability is not, AFAICT, effected.

> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> On Nov 21, 2011, at 12:41 PM, dime issue tracker wrote:
> 
>> #19: Tunnel-Assignment-Id AVP
>>
>>
>> Comment (by gwz@…):
>>
>> Yes, it was intentional.
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------+---------------------
>> Reporter:  jouni.nospam@…   |       Owner:  dime@…
>>     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new
>> Priority:  major            |   Milestone:
>> Component:  rfc4005bis       |     Version:
>> Severity:  In WG Last Call  |  Resolution:
>> Keywords:                   |
>> -----------------------------+---------------------
>>
>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/19#comment:1>
>> dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> 
>