RE: Revisions to RFC 4005

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

> 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
[gwz] 
[gwz] 
Right, so what I'm suggesting is that whatever Diameter-related issues there
might be w/the extended attributes should be addressed in the extended
attributes document, while another small document (_not_ an entire rewrite
of RFC 4005 unless there are other problems) should address the general
problem w/VSA translation (though as you know I believe that the best
approach is no translation at all, esp. given the impossibility of
translating Diameter AVPs to RADIUS attributes in the general case).



--
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/>