|
> Given that all these values are to be registered as
a block, and the majority of the proposed values have a big question mark for
me, I can't help but say No. I think we need to get these question marks discussed before
saying no. Historically, the NAS-port-type is associated with the L1/L2
port over which the “access” service is provided. But with the new
use of RADIUS, this view is no longer applicable. Again, consider a Mobile IP
Home Agent node implementing RADIUS client for AAAing the MN’s
registration requests. The L1/L2 port that receives the MN registration request
has no significance, and it can be one of many types. Here, our thinking is,
the “logical” port is the “Mobile IP Home Agent”, and
that has nothing to do with the L1/L2 port. What do people think? Alper From: Alper Yegin
[mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] Hello, I see the choice of terminology is causing trouble. The
terminology is coming from WMF, and it may not very well align with the ones
used in IETF. TBD for
WIMAX-HA-LMA: WiMAX HA and or LMA function. For
example, this one above is for defining the interface between the Mobile IP HA
and the AAA server for AAAing Mobile IP service. With that explanation, does it
still not qualify for a NAS-port-type? Alper From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Stefan Winter Hello, At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result
between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and
the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to
allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to
establish rough consensus in either direction. Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either
a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a
‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond
regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus
poll.
Nas-Port-Type
values as follows: TBD
for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service |