From: "Greg Weber (gdweber)" <gdweber@cisco.com>
To: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
CC: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>, <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:30:27 -0500
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/>
> >
>