Re: RADEXT charter, Take 8

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Avi Lior wrote:

> Nothing is ever 100% compatible ;-)
>
> As stated before, we are trying to keep the number of features and
> variations for the RADIUS prepaid document down so that we can achieve the
> milestone set by the charter.  
> The approach taken would allow someone else to build on this work by
> issueing a new RFC.
>
> I am okay with the wording except the "Event Oriented Charging" seems to be
> new.  That is in Diameter CC and not in this one.  The Differential charging
> (if I understand it correctly) can easily be addressed.
>
> The two prepaid approaches (this one and diameter) share a common model. I
> had already received comments to that effect from serveral people who are
> quite interested in having equivalent functionality.  So we will keep
> working on this while maintaining the schedule. 

Sounds good. Thanks for the info.

I agree with your approach to keep the number of
features minimal. By the way, are there some external
SDO requirements for this prepaid work? If so, is
the charter definition for prepaid functions compatible
with their requirements?

--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/>