RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00

["Greg Weber \(gdweber\)" <gdweber@cisco.com>]

I guess I am just observing that this is an opportunity
to set a precedent.  I do not feel strongly about this
issue for this particular draft, but in general, how do
we comply with this part of the charter:
  "RADEXT WG work items MUST contain a Diameter 
   compatibility section, outlining how
   interoperability with Diameter will be 
   maintained."
Saying, essentially, this RADIUS attribute can be used
with so-and-so application may not be a clear specification
given some of the complicated Diameter applications that
may occur.  I don't think a Diameter AVP table is out of
the question- do you?

Greg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: john.loughney@nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:13 AM
> To: Greg Weber (gdweber); bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00
> 
> Are you suggesting havinging Diameter AVP tables in the draft?
> 
> John
> 
> >> How would this work?
> >> 
> >> Fix the typo.
> >> 
> >> Insert a section 4 that says the following:
> >> 
> >> 4.  Diameter Considerations
> >> 
> >>    Diameter needs to define identical attributes with the same Type
> >>    values.  The attributes should be available as part of 
> the NASREQ
> >>    application [RFC4005], as well as the Diameter EAP application
> >>    [RFC4072].
> >> 
> >> Add Informative references to [RFC4005] and [RFC4072].
> >
> >It might be beneficial to set a more useful and informative 
> >precedent than was established with CUI, e.g. which messages 
> >in which applications may contain the attribute.  This would 
> >seem to be analogous to the rigor of the typical RADIUS 
> >attribute table found in most RADIUS drafts.  Disagree?
> >
> >Greg
> >
> >> 
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---------------------------
> >> Description of issue: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00 Submitter 
> >> name: Greg Weber Submitter email address: gdweber@cisco.com 
> >Date first 
> >> submitted: February 21, 2006
> >> Reference: NA
> >> Document: VLAN-00
> >> Comment type: Editorial
> >> Priority: S
> >> Section: NA
> >> Rationale/Explanation of issue:
> >> 
> >>   In the RADEXT charter, I see:
> >>     "...all RADEXT WG work items MUST contain a Diameter
> >>      compatibility section, outlining how interoperability
> >>      with Diameter will be maintained."
> >> 
> >>   The VLAN draft does not contain a Diameter compatibility
> >>   section, but does mention (in the abstract) that these
> >>   attributes can be used with Diameter.
> >> 
> >> Requested change:
> >>   The table of attributes in section 3 shows which attributes
> >>   may be in which RADIUS messages.  Maybe another similar
> >>   table is needed in a Diameter Compatibility section showing
> >>   which Diameter applications/messages may include these 
> attributes.
> >> 
> >>   Also, I see one typo that wasn't in the previous version :)
> >>     Section 1.3:  'Unsupported Attribute"' ->
> >>                   '"Unsupported Attribute"' (missing double quote).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> 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/>