Pls check: draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

This document (revision 3) was reviewed by the OPS-directorate
over a year ago. I believe Bernard was the reviewer there.
The comments that I then got contained one piece for which I 
took a DISCUSS position. That was:

       Section 4.7

       "the RADIUS AAA Server MUST initiate the DMU procedure by including
       the MIP_Key_Request attribute in an Access Reject message sent to the
       PDSN.  "

   The RADIUS protocol defined in [RFC2865] does not permit attributes to be
   sent in Access-Reject messages.

That text is still there, but they have added a note:

   Note that the inclusion of a vendor-specific attribute in the Access    
   Reject message is not consistent with section 5.44 of [4]. A RADIUS    
   AAA server that supports DMU SHOULD NOT include a vendor-specific    
   attribute if the corresponding Access Request message was not    
   received from a DMU-compliant PDSN.  

So at least we now seem to have truth in advertising.

a quick ptr to a side-by-side diff of the previous version:

http://bgp.potaroo.net/cgi-bin/htmldiff?f1=draft%2dcarroll%2ddynmobileip%2dcdma%2d04%2etxt&f2=draft%2dcarroll%2ddynmobileip%2dcdma%2d03%2etxt

Since this is a document coming in as individual submission via 
RFC-Editor, and since all such documents these days get an IESG
note according to RFC3932, I think that I can remove the DISCUSS.

Any objectuions to that?
Bert