RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00

["Greg Weber \(gdweber\)" <gdweber@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:52 AM
> To: Greg Weber (gdweber)
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org; john.loughney@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00
> 
> >I agree, but does 4072 say anything about future
> >RADIUS attributes?  I don't see this in section 5,
> >but I'll have to look again at section 6.
> 
> That should probably be in RFC 4005, since that deals with 
> RADIUS/Diameter 
> gateways.
> 
> >Certainly hope not, or we don't have a very extensible
> >framework.  :-)
> 
> While RFC 3588 indicates that a new application ID is not 
> required to add 
> optional attributes to Diameter, addition of mandatory 
> attributes do require 
> a new application ID.   

Yes, you made a similar comment earlier which I did 
fully grok.  Why is adding a RADIUS attribute to a 
Diameter application equated with 'mandatory'?  
I would think that RADIUS attributes carried in Diameter
do not have the 'required' bit set in the attribute header,
as RADIUS does not have the 'required' concept.  No?

Greg

> This has proven to be something of a 
> problem since 
> there have been quite a few occasions where it has been 
> necessary to add new 
> attributes and allocating a new application ID ever time is 
> not convenient.  
> As a result, I'm not entirely clear that the VLAN attributes 
> can be added to 
> Diameter EAP or NASREQ without allocation of an application 
> ID, although 
> that hardly seems logical.
> 

--
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/>