Subject: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-04: Updates: RFC 3588?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:55:35 +0200

Dear all,

Internet Engineering Task Force                                   T. Tsou

Internet-Draft                                  Huawei Technologies (USA)

Updates: RFC 3588 (if approved)                            T. Taylor, Ed.

Intended status: Standards Track                      Huawei Technologies

Expires: July 14, 2012                                   January 11, 2012

                   Realm-Based Redirection In Diameter

                 draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-04

When I saw "update RFC3588", I was wondering: should it be "Updates: RFC 
3588bis"?
And actually, is this "update" keyword required at all?

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:48:33 +0200

The justification was that it was modifying behaviour specified in 3588. 
Your point regarding 3588bis is reasonably well taken given the advanced 
state of that document.

I have to apologize for not showing up thius afternoon. I was tied up at 
hospital -- a strange case of a booby-trapped boot (or at least, 
contaminated, but that doesn't read so smoothly). Basically, I've 
responded to previous WGLC review comments and wonder if we could 
continue WGLC.

On 12-03-29 03:55 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> When I saw "update RFC3588", I was wondering: should it be "Updates: 
> RFC 3588bis"?
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime