Diameter Base Protocol
RFC 6733

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 29 and is now closed.

(Benoît Claise) Yes

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2012-03-11 for -31)
No email
send info
Since -31 says that Diameter MUST be used with one of TLS, DTLS or IPsec,
that clears my discuss. Thanks.

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-05 for -32)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing all of my comments. It seems you missed a few things in the conversion from "ABNF" to "CCF":

1.1.3 - You say "command ABNFs" when I think you mean "CCFs". If correct, you should also spell it out the first time you use it: "Command Code Format (CCF)".

1.2 - You should define "CCF".

3.2 - In the comment "avp-name", you say "command ABNFs" when I think you mean "CCFs".

These could all be done in an RFC Editor note if your AD agrees; no need for a new revision.

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-12 for -31)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my concerns about the IANA considerations. I have two other comments:

1. In Section 1.3.3, this specification has "[d]eprecated the exchange of CER/CEA messages in the open state" but "assume[s] that the capabilities exchange in the open state will be re-introduced in a separate specification". Do we really want to actively deprecate something that it's assumed will return in the not-too-distant future? Or do we want to change "will be re-introduced" to "might be re-introduced"?

2. It might be helpful to explain why the End-to-End security framework has been deprecated. Did it not work properly? Did no one implement it? Were there such significant interoperability problems that it was deemed better to scrap it? And, will it be (or does it need to be) replaced by something else?

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-29 for -31)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my concerns.

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-03-12 for -32)
No email
send info
#18) s5.2: Name matching has proved to be a challenge for many in the TLS/DTLS environment.  A pointer to RFC 6125 would be much appreciated.

(Jari Arkko) Recuse