RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Thomas Narten <mailto:narten@us.ibm.com> supposedly scribbled:

...

> 
> Given that the protocol is deployed, and most folks seem to think
> it's better to document something (that is widely deployed) than
not,

It's not clear to me that this protocol is widely deployed, but
possibly my understanding of the term is deficient.  My
understanding is that this is a proprietary protocol, deployed in a
single 3G cellular network (Verizon); furthermore it appears that
this protocol will only be useful with so-called "captive" mobile
devices, and not in a roaming environment.  If I'm correct on those
points, then I wouldn't consider it to be "widely deployed".

> adding such a note as outlined above seems like a reasonable way
out
> (to me).   
> 
> What do others think? Which particual radius extensions would need
to
> be called out for attention? 

The only actual violations that I can see are 1) the inclusion of
vendor-specific attributes in the Access-Reject message and 2) the
redefinition of the semantics of the Access-Reject message to _not_
terminate the PPP connection.  Given your explanation (not
reproduced), I suppose we must ignore the security issues/questions
raised by Bernard & myself.

> 
> Thomas

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
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/>