RE: General comments on the LAN attributes work

["Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>]

Hi Jari,
Please see my comments inline.
BR,
Farid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:02 AM
> To: Bernard Aboba; 'radiusext@ops.ietf.org'; dnelson@enterasys.com
> Subject: General comments on the LAN attributes work
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The world has evolved a lot since the RADIUS attributes
>     were defined, as we mainly had dial-in in mind back then.
>     New link layers, their new capabilities, and roaming imply
>     that there is a need for new AAA attributes as well. I support
>     extension work to define such attributes.
> 
> 2) Most of the proposed new functions are valid. Not quite
>     sure about _all_ them, such as capabilities negotiation for
>     RADIUS.
> 
[FA] If you are referring to Application-Based capability in our draft, 
I wouldn't put it as capabilities negotiation, rather as capabilities 
Advertisement. [FA]

> 3) Almost everything in the drafts that I read applies to
>     both Diameter and RADIUS. There were a few exceptions, such
>     as some attributes which already existed in RADIUS. I believe
>     it would be a serious design mistake to make the drafts apply
>     just for RADIUS. As these functions are mainly about new 
> attributes,
>     they should be documented in such a way that they apply to
>     both Diameter and RADIUS. Please make it so. In one draft.
> 
>     There may be a few cases where translation becomes an issue.
>     If so, those need to be documented. But there is simply no
>     excuse to making this work RADIUS-specific.
> 

[FA] You have a point here. [FA]

> 4) It may be worthwhile to think about the organization of
>     the attribute definitions into different documents, if
>     we get to standardizing them. Some of this stuff is
>     more general than LAN.
> 
>     Personally, I'd prefer a set of multiple smaller specifications.
>     Say, an RFC on location attributes for AAA. I think we could
>     get them done sooner and it would be easier for vendors to
>     document what they support.
> 

[FA] Yes.  In fact, we (Farooq and I) discussed this with Bernard 
after the RadiusExt BoF in IETF#58.  We specifically discussed this in 
the context of location information as there is an urgency to get the
attributes finalized by GSMA.  This was also suggested in the last GSMA
meeting, and we are planning to submit the finalized version in a
separate
draft. [FA]

> --Jari
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>