RE: Revisions to RFC 4005

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> Just for the sake of findability (don't think that that's actually
> a word, but hopefully you know what I mean), I would think that 
> that kind of update would be better addressed in a document that
> had "Diameter" in the title.

Well, this is a cross-protocol issue, but I agree that the preferable
vehicle would be an rfc4005bis (update or revision) document.  I've
previously sent an e-mail to the DIME WG chairs (and copied this list) to
see if there is any document in that WG which could take on this issue.
I've not seen any reply.

OTOH, when RADEXT is extending RADIUS we have a pro-active obligation to
address Diameter interoperability in our documents.



--
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/>