RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:33 AM
> To: Greg Weber (gdweber); john.loughney@nokia.com
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Diameter compatibility of VLAN-00
> 
> It would seem awkward for this document to Update RFC 4005 
> and 4072.  

I agree, but does 4072 say anything about future 
RADIUS attributes?  I don't see this in section 5,
but I'll have to look again at section 6. 

> I'm also not entirely clear whether it would be necessary to 
> change the ABNFs in those documents.

Certainly hope not, or we don't have a very extensible
framework.  :-)

Greg

> 
> 
> >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/>
> > > >
> > >
> 

--
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/>