[06:00:25] --- alexis.hildebrandt has joined [06:04:46] --- davidbnelson has joined [06:05:27] * davidbnelson has changed the subject to: DIME WG Meeting at IETF-71 [06:08:25] Hello David, are you on site? I'd like to attend the Dime meeting virtually, but hear no audio, do you? [06:11:25] I am on site. [06:11:43] Do you still hear no audio? [06:13:11] --- avri has joined [06:13:21] still no audio here either [06:13:44] listed for channel 8 [06:13:53] other channels seem to be wrking [06:16:12] still no audio on channel 8 [06:17:09] The audio works in the room, but we're getting some interfernce from an adjacent room, as well. [06:17:48] Discussion of the recommendatiosn of the design team on use of a new versioning scheme. [06:17:48] it is funny don't even get static like i get on some other rooms that aren't actualy audicasting at the moment. but some rooms work just fine. [06:18:56] Yip, there is not even "comfort noise" on channel 8 [06:20:22] --- xiaohunhun has joined [06:25:34] Discussion of hte use of optional "non-M-bit" AVPS. [06:25:58] Discussion of end-to-end capabilities. [06:26:20] --- davem has joined [06:26:27] --- kuntal has joined [06:26:41] Capabilities negoration is an old there in AAA protocols. [06:27:13] Proxy support would be required. [06:28:00] Problems is that the proxies hasve to know about the applications. Doesn't scale well to practical deployment. [06:29:36] End points can change after the initial negotation. [06:30:05] --- xiaohunhun has left [06:35:25] --- john.zhao has joined [06:37:08] Looks like someone is now working on the streaming audio problem. [06:37:33] btw, some sound has started coming through but it is barely audible and full of extra noise. [06:38:39] thanks [06:38:53] Discussion of the requirements for end-to-end capabilities. [06:42:33] Recommendations: [06:43:01] Use of the m-bit is contextually dependent on the AVP use in applications. [06:43:15] Sorry, I've come in late, my problem is I cann't even connect to the uoregon.edu website... Operation timed out [06:43:36] yeah, it is now. i think they are trying to fix it. [06:43:39] Correlation of m-bit and the ABNF. [06:44:06] Remove SHOULD and SHOULD NOT from the m-bit table. [06:44:37] Relax intermediate node validation of m-bits. [06:44:58] Changes to ABNF for a command code it requires a new application id. [06:45:53] Allocation of new command codes requires IETF consensus. What to do about request from other SDOs? [06:47:48] One way forward is AD-sponsored drafts. [06:48:11] Could also use the AAA Doctors team as expert review. [06:48:41] ould require standards status in the SDO + AD appointed experts [06:49:26] ADs can appoint standing IANA experts for particular values [06:49:27] Q: What is the tiemframe for a decision on the m-bit issue? [06:50:10] --- telemaco.melia has joined [06:50:14] Ah I hear audio, very noisy and hard to understand, though [06:50:24] Hannes: Depends of cooperative review of all documenst by WG members ans other SDOs. [06:51:31] me too now. tis is what i had before - when it disappeared completely. [06:51:36] Hannes: Discussion of comamnd cods allcoation last year. In the document there is expert review called out. [06:53:03] Dan R: Want to avoid turning Diameter inot a "univeversal" protocol. [06:53:57] isn't it a bit late for that? [06:54:06] Q: In 3GPP request was for command codes without explanation of AVPs, etc. Is that what we want? [06:54:29] Hannes: We are not the protocol police. [06:54:58] Need for SDO-specific commands codes. [06:55:19] actually for protocols under ietf change control, the ietf is the protocol police. [07:00:16] Design guidelines are a checklist. Expected to ba a tool for use in other SDOs. [07:01:27] how useful are unenforced guidelines? if the Ad appoints 1-2 experts for IANA review before assignment to see if they met the guideline then it is enforced. [07:01:41] Glen Z: Thinks guidelines are a good idea. [07:03:53] --- kuntal has left: Replaced by new connection [07:07:02] Dan R: Addressing how we should handle request for expert review. [07:08:07] Hannes: Should there be an expert review for allocation of vendor-specific application ids in the 3588bis draft? [07:08:37] cmq stanno discutendo il primo doc [07:08:57] hmmm [07:09:04] (sorry guys) [07:09:50] Hannes: Review against Diameter guidelines, not of the base application. [07:10:18] Comment: Need a detailed description of such ids. [07:11:12] A few is support. [07:11:26] Hannes: Against? [07:11:43] Slightly more. [07:15:34] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined [07:17:57] Glen: There can be problems with expert review. Best path is to attend the SDOs where Diameter work is being dome and contribute to the work there, [07:18:35] Comment: Expert review is neded. SDOs are not immune from making mistakes. [07:20:29] Hannes: Folks in the room are somewhat against having expert review. Need to take the issue to the mailing list. [07:20:36] What about commands codes? [07:20:57] Hannes: Wrong to put different rules on the command codes. [07:22:09] Should require SDOs to have their own command codes to provide for "isolation". [07:24:41] Glen Z: Extsting rules don't cover external organizations very well. Should recommend that an Informational RFC be published. [07:25:43] On to the next presentation. [07:26:01] Diameter MIPv6. [08:24:26] --- john.zhao has joined [08:28:32] --- behcet.sarikaya has joined [08:29:38] --- telemaco.melia has joined [08:30:11] --- davem has joined [08:30:53] --- behcet.sarikaya has left [08:30:56] hmmm... did everyone flee or am I the first back [08:31:31] --- john.zhao has left: Computer went to sleep [08:41:57] --- john.zhao has joined [08:45:55] --- john.zhao has left: Lost connection [08:48:30] --- davem has left [08:57:50] --- telemaco.melia has left [09:08:08] --- avri has joined [09:40:33] --- elwynd has joined [09:40:39] --- elwynd has left [10:30:12] --- avri has joined [12:18:40] --- incarose@gmail.com has joined [15:34:26] --- incarose@gmail.com has joined [20:59:36] --- incarose@gmail.com has left