RE: RE: AAAEXT charter, Take 1

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

I do agree with you, Parviz.  This is pretty much aligned with what we
discussed/agreed during the last BoF.  
BR,
FArid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Parviz Yegani
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:29 PM
> To: Kuntal Chowdhury; john.loughney@nokia.com
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RE: AAAEXT charter, Take 1
> 
> 
> Kuntal, John,
> 
> I think we should bring our focus back to the main question 
> that Bernard asked:
> 
> "How do other participants feel about a "AAAEXT" charter? 
> Should we rename the potential WG and re-orient towards 
> handling both RADIUS and Diameter in a single WG?"
> 
> I agree that the charter should largely remain the same. The 
> name change is not the main issue here. If there is a general 
> agreement on the work items currently included in the charter 
> then we should go ahead and start the 
> real work.
> 
> It seems that John wants to add a new item to address Radius 
> and Diameter 
> compatibility.
> Given that there is already R/D compatibility for prepaid and 
> SIP I'm not 
> sure what else
> we need to add. Maybe support for common NAI and LAN/WLAN 
> attributes. If so, let's consider adding these items and move 
> on. If adequate resources are 
> available
> to the WG to work on these new items (which seems to be the 
> case) we should 
> go ahead
> and finalize the charter and start deliberating on the drafts 
> that have 
> been submitted so far.
> 
> -Parviz
> 
> At 03:06 PM 3/31/2004 -0600, Kuntal Chowdhury wrote:
> >John,
> >
> > >MIPv6 was not designed to interwork with MIPv4, so if 
> someone tries 
> > >to mix them, I am sure they will find problems.
> > >
> >
> >Not sure why you think "simultaneous deployment" means mixing two 
> >protocols! This is not a MIP thread, therefore I would not 
> debate over 
> >MIP issues anymore.
> >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> >
> >I will be perfectly alright to add a sentence in RADEXT 
> charter to say 
> >that the work done in this WG shall not destroy interworking with 
> >DIAMETER. I believe that will address your concern.
> >
> >-Kuntal
> >
> >--
> >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/>
> 

--
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/>