The CL and SM drafts should definitely specify the information models.
In my own mind, the actual protocol specification belongs in another
document, since it would be common to the two models. Other edge
behaviours (e.g. the piggybacking approach) would require their own
protocol solutions.
Seriously, would Diameter make sense as the protocol? If so, the work is
mostly done and I would just revive draft-huang-dime-pcn-collection and
bring it up to date.
On 22/06/2011 2:21 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Tom,
which work are you taking up?
- specifying the madatory to implement protocol.
- or specifying a minimum clear information model (RFC3444).
I prefer the latter above the former.
..
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
