RE: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt

["Sanchez, Mauricio (PNB Roseville)" <mauricio.sanchez@hp.com>]

I had suggested in a previous email that we change the name of
NAS-Filter-Rule to something else to avoid any possibility that someone
may confuse this RADIUS attribute from what is already defined in
Diameter.

Diameter is going to inherit this new attribute anyway, so I'm unsure
what sort of compatibility issues may arise if we call the attribute
something 'Traffic-Rule'?

My expectation would be that NAS-Filter-Rule be deprecated.

MS 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:37 PM
> To: gdweber@cisco.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt
> 
> >I'd like to understand this too.  I thought we didn't want 
> to try & do 
> >things in RADIUS that are not supported in Diameter.
> 
> The RADEXT WG charter requires that Diameter compatibility issues be 
> examined as part of each work item.   Extending the RFC 3588 
> NAS-Filter-Rule 
> syntax does bring up Diameter compatibility issues.  This was 
> pointed out in Issue 130, which was filed in August 2005.
> 
> As I understand it, the DIME WG is being chartered to produce 
> RFC 3588bis, so one possibility is that they will consider a 
> NAS-Filter-Rule syntax revision as part of that effort.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>