RE: RE: AAAEXT charter, Take 1

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Kuntal,

> 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. 

MIPv6 was not designed to interwork with MIPv4, so if someone tries to
mix them, I am sure they will find problems.

> 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.

But I am concerned because Diameter was designed to interwork with RADIUS.
If the WG goes of and extends RADIUS in ways that destroys the interworking,
then we have a big problem.  

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/>