RE: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt)

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Bert Wijnen writes...
 
>   If WG A cannot reach (or has trouble reaching)
>   consensus/agreement on a specific work item,
>   then what arguments do we have that WG B
>   can do better?

None.

However, I don't think that the issue is that the RADEXT WG cannot come
to consensus on a technical approach as much as it is the fact that a
RADEXT draft is proposing to extend the existing Diameter
NAS-Filter-Rule syntax.  There are at least two problems here: (1)
RADIUS is not supposed to be a super-set of Diameter in any of its
features, and (2) failing to address a corresponding extension in
Diameter causes difficulty for the translation gateway process.  It was
suggested that, if an extension to the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule is
required for use in RADIUS, that we actually extend the Diameter
NAS-Filter-Rule, rather that defining a separate RADIUS-NAS-Filter-Rule
attribute and syntax.


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>