RE: RE: AAAEXT charter, Take 1

["Kuntal Chowdhury" <chowdury@nortelnetworks.com>]

John,

You may be right, however there are carriers who already use MIP4 and plan
to deploy MIP6 in near future. We cannot guarantee that MIP4 and MIP6
simultaneous deployments will not discover issues. 

I think the main reason for MIP WG split was that the MIP WG had split
everything, e.g. split audience, split priorities etc. I recall the meeting
where the WG decided to break into two separate WGs citing these reasons.
Another reason was the delay in getting things done for MIP4 due to huge
amount of time and resource allocation for MIP6. One example is: 3GPP2 still
uses RFC2002 because the updated RFCs had several bugs and the MIP WG was
too busy with MIP6 and had no time to rectify these MIP4 bugs.

I don't want to see a repeat of what happened in MIP WG in this planned WG
for RADIUS.

-Kuntal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: john.loughney@nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney@nokia.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:02 PM
>To: Chowdhury, Kuntal [RICH1:2H18:EXCH]
>Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: RE: AAAEXT charter, Take 1
>
>
>Kuntal,
>
>> Why overloading RADIUSext with DIAMETER issues? If 
>discussions happen 
>> separately, folks who have very little interest in pure RADIUS won't 
>> have to deal with volumes of email on RADIUS. Take the example of 
>> Mobile IP WG. The WG was split into MIP6 and MIP4 because it became 
>> too chaotic to manage and progress work on different 
>disjoint threads.
>
>Because MIPv4 and MIPv6 don't interwork in any current deployments.  
>RADIUS and Diameter will need to interworking in many deployments.
>
>John
>
>--
>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/>