> Some time ago, Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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 > > > > > > > > > >
