[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    FW: [AAA-WG]: Request for IETF last call on Diameter-11 and Transport-07 drafts
From:       "Glen Zorn" <gwz () cisco ! com>
Date:       2002-06-27 22:26:39
[Download RAW message or body]

> Some time ago, Randy Bush [mailto://randy@psg.com] wrote:
>
> > > The AAA WG has completed WG last call on the Diameter Base-10 and
> > > Transport-07 documents. As a result of WG last call comments, no
> > > changes were made to the Transport document, and 20 changes were
> > > made to the Diameter Base document, with 5 comments rejected.
> >
> > as ad, i will not be passing this to the iesg for review.  there
> > is one comment that has not been addressed by -11, vendor-specific
> > commands.  as i have repeatedly said, if i was to pass this to the
> > iesg, it is a sure show-stopper.
> >
> > rather than saying it all over again, can folk please review the
> > mailing list archive on this.
>
> The archives are available again, so I attempted to review them.  However,
> it appears that the archives are incomplete: I couldn't find a single
> message in them on this topic from any IESG member.
>
> > essentially, the iesg has a hot-
> > button about mandatory vendor commands.
>
> Given the above, I (and perhaps the rest of the WG) would _really_
> appreciate it if you (or anyone else on the IESG) would take the time to
> explain 1) where in the current document mandatory vendor commands are
> specified and 2) how the mechanisms in the current protocol are
> dangerous to
> interoperability.  It would be _extra_ wonderful if this explanation had
> some technical qualities (as opposed to hot flashes) and evinced that the
> explainer had actually read the document in question.
>
> >
> > randy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]