[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE : AAAEXT charter, Take 1
Hi,
There is something unclear in the Jari's proposal. The first part of the charter states that Diameter AND RADIUS extensions will be investigated. The rest of the text is based on the previous proposal in which only RADIUS extensions were considered as well as Diameter/Radius compatibility.
If there is a proposal for enhancing the current NASREQ application for LAN/WLAN (with a new command or new madatory AVP for instance), would it be now considered as possible work item? I know that the goal is to narrow as much as possible the scope of this working group on RADIUS extensions but reading the first part of charter, I would not understand why such proposal would not be accepted.
Lionel
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] De la part de Jari Arkko
> Envoyé : mercredi 31 mars 2004 18:37
> À : Richard Perlman; Bernard Aboba
> Cc : Radius Extensions
> Objet : Re: AAAEXT charter, Take 1
>
>
> Bernard wrote:
>
> > Should we rename the potential WG and re-orient towards
> handling both
> > RADIUS and Diameter in a single WG?
>
> Note that I'm not sure how much "re-orient" we need.
> What I suggested did not really change the list of
> work items. I basically just requested the fact of
> common impact be recognized, in terms of components
> that are not specific to RADIUS as well as translation
> requirements. The common portion is IMHO large enough to
> warrant a change in the name as well.
>
> It may be fair to ask whether, as a part of this re-orient",
> the group should start doing possibly OTHER extensions than
> those currently listed. It didn't mean to imply this. I think
> the current charter is reasonable and it isn't easy to
> increase the number of work items a lot, whether or not my
> suggestion is adopted.
>
> So, work beyond the currently discussed items probably
> has to go to another place (such as the application WG)
> in any case, or wait until most of RADEXT/AAAEXT items
> have been completed.
>
> > Personally, I'd like to keep the work separate. There is certainly
> > good reason for the work on DIAMETER and RADIUS futures to
> coordinate
> > with each other, but I think the actual WGs should be separate.
> >
> > One good reason is to avoid endless battles over whether a certain
> > extension should be in D, R or both. Let each group work
> out the best
> > path, that is consistent with overall IETF/IESG direction.
>
> I believe the charter is pretty clear already about which
> extensions are to be done, and on which protocol. I think
> that's good. Is there a specific extension that you worry about?
>
> However, I think it would be very unfortunate if we
> started divergent standardization for, say, RADIUS NAIs
> and Diameter NAIs, or created a WLAN attribute set for
> RADIUS that couldn't be converted to Diameter using NASREQ,
> or if the WLAN attributes for Diameter and RADIUS contained
> different information.
>
> --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/>