Hi Hannes,
On 2008-07-29 20:47, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> A short note on:
>> I am rather surprised that it is proposed to assign a "vendor-specific"
>> application identifier when the primary usage is not specific to a
>> vendor;
>> an ITU-T Recommendation is not a vendor. RFC3588 says
>> "Vendor-Specific Application Identifiers, are for Private Use." This is
>> not for private use. Why isn't this a standards track application
>> identifier?
>
> This is common practise in this space to use the so-called
> vendor-specific space for SDOs. The same approach is applied in RADIUS
> as well.
> When you look at the enterprise numbers
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers
> then you will notice that there are a couple of SDOs in there:
> 24757: WiMAX Forum
>
> 5535: 3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2)
>
> 10415: 3GPP
>
>
> We use this approach already for many years in Diameter.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the need for
pragmatic solutions for other SDOs. I wonder though whether it
wouldn't be better to be explicit in the base documents, perhaps
by labelling the ranges concerned as "Vendor-Specific or
SDO". It's particularly strange to tell another SDO that its
usage is "private". However, this clearly isn't a problem
that draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw can fix.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
