Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 12 December 2008 11:48 UTC
Return-Path: <aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: aaa-doctors-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-aaa-doctors-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4AD3A6AAB; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:48:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9103A6AA3 for <aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:48:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4sBuLU1lC6o for <aaa-doctors@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:48:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E3B53A695E for <aaa-doctors@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0513519876B; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:48:02 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33381986EF; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:48:01 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <49424F57.5050208@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:47:35 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040114D70E@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB720261A77D@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401182A7B@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB720261AEF9@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401182C49@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com><005101c94ffd$d841c940$88c55bc0$@net><1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB7202650116@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com><492E99F6.8030703@piuha.net><6CF039C5B32037498B02251E11CDE6B0078740F8@ftrdmel3><1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB7202706228@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com><3fe59bfe0812020417x7b7394fbmd618ced601689558@mail.gmail.com><1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB72027AC6A5@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com> <FB0CE16C-EE8F-458C-9DAC-E6BA25E4E89A@gmail.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04011F6D43@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB72028BA809@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1696498986EFEC4D9153717DA325CB72028BA809@vaebe104.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, jouni.korhonen@nsn.com, julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com, charliep@wichorus.com
Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated
X-BeenThere: aaa-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: AAA Doctors E-mail List <aaa-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/aaa-doctors>
List-Post: <mailto:aaa-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors>, <mailto:aaa-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Sender: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
Sorry, I have been fighting fires on many fronts and not been able to pay enough attention to this discussion. But yes, this does look reasonable. Jari Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com wrote: > Dan, Jari, Jouni & others, > > The situation seems to be that the RADIUS work will be probably used > by different SDOs than the Diameter work, so (1) translation may not > be needed, and (2) translation may not be even possible, because the > documents have different semantics (this is the case for the latest > draft versions; and may continue to be the case if the SDOs using > RADIUS have slightly different requirements). > > While these arguments are not really about the technical solutions but > the process of writing the documents, it seems the RADIUS parts are > considerably less mature (and the required semantics may still change), > while 3GPP apparently already knows what semantics it needs. > > I guess this could be a possible reason for leaving the MIP6-Agent-Info > AVP in the Diameter number space. > > Jari, would this work for you? > > Looking back at the emails, the following things (not related to > this RADIUS/Diameter topic) were still not handled in the -11 version: > > - Describing the semantics of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in request > messages. > > - If the message contains information about multiple HAs, which home > agent(s) the prefix(es) in MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP(s) belong to. > (One way to solve this would be to move it inside the Grouped AVP; > another way would be to prohibit its use if the message contains > multiple HAs; other solutions may be possible) > > - Clarifying the use of "realm" for MIP-Home-Agent-Host (the text > proposed by Jouni on 2008-11-27 looks OK to me) > > Best regards, > Pasi > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] >> Sent: 11 December, 2008 11:32 >> To: jouni; Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) >> Cc: kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; >> Korhonen Jouni (NSN - FI/Espoo); >> julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.; charliep@wichorus.com >> Subject: RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of >> draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated >> >> Pasi, >> >> What is the way forward? Have all your questions been >> clarified, or do you expect more information from the >> document editors? >> >> Dan >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of jouni >>> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:33 PM >>> To: <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> >>> Cc: kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com Chowdhury; >>> aaa-doctors@ietf.org; jouni.korhonen@nsn.com; >>> julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.; charliep@wichorus.com >>> Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of >>> draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated >>> >>> Pasi, >>> >>> On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:06 PM, <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> >>> <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com > wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jouni, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the pointers! >>>> >>>> I took a look at these specs, and it seems they're using >>>> >> only some >> >>>> parts of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated. >>>> >>> Hopefully you found the latest ones. At least those on 3GPP >>> site that I found, were 1-2 meeting cycles behind (checked >>> this morning the official specs download pages). Anyway, >>> other SDOs who picked up this standards track I-D, are still >>> according to my limited knowledge completely align with the >>> I-D (even if they may not use all possible features). >>> >>> >>>> None of these seem to describe a case where information >>>> >> about more >> >>>> than one Home Agent is sent (which would benefit from >>>> >>> grouped AVPs), >>> >>>> and neither use the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP. (29.273 >>>> >>> Section 9.2.2 >>> >>>> ABNF does allow more than one MIP6-Agent-Info AVP, but the text >>>> doesn't describe any other case than a single PDN GW.) >>>> >>>> Do you know if e.g. 3GPP plans to add more semantics from >>>> >>> dime-mip6- >>> >>>> integrated to these specs? Or is dime-mip6-integrated actually >>>> describing more functionality than other SDOs are currently >>>> >>> planning >>> >>>> to use? >>>> >>> I cannot say what other SDOs plan to do in the future. >>> Current I-D describes more functionality what the above spec >>> decided to use at the moment. However, whether they e.g. end >>> up signaling one or more "agent infos" is allowed by current >>> the I-D. That's up to their deployment view, which might not >>> be the same for others in the future. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jouni >>> >>> >>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Pasi >>>> >>>> From: ext jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: 02 December, 2008 14:18 >>>> To: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) >>>> Cc: julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com; >>>> >>> jari.arkko@piuha.net; kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com >>> >>>> ; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; Korhonen Jouni (NSN - FI/Espoo); >>>> >>> charliep@wichorus.com >>> >>>> ; jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com >>>> Subject: Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-mip6- >>>> integrated >>>> >>>> in 3GPP 29.272, 29.273 and in 3gpp2 X.P0047.. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, <Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com> wrote: >>>> Julien and Jouni, >>>> >>>> Could you provide a pointer to 3GPP specs that define how these >>>> AVPs are used in 3GPP? >>>> >>>> I tried searching, but found nothing except 23.402, which only >>>> mentions this draft in a single sentence. Presumably, the details >>>> of exactly which of the AVPs are used and how are in some Stage 3 >>>> spec, but I can't seem to find it... >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Pasi >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: ext julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com >>>>> [mailto:julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com] >>>>> Sent: 27 November, 2008 15:17 >>>>> To: jari.arkko@piuha.net; Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) >>>>> Cc: glenzorn@comcast.net; dromasca@avaya.com; >>>>> jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com; Korhonen Jouni (NSN - >>>>> FI/Espoo); aaa-doctors@ietf.org; charliep@wichorus.com; >>>>> kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com >>>>> Subject: RE: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of >>>>> draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your clarifications, I think I better understand >>>>> your concern now. You are true >>>>> that we are not defining a new Diameter application here and >>>>> that finally we just add AVPs to Diameter EAP/NASREQ. In >>>>> >>> particular >>> >>>>> the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP of Type Grouped. From my point of view, >>>>> this AVP makes sense from a Diameter point of view and I'm not >>>>> really confortable to split it to ease Diameter/RADIUS >>>>> >>> translation. >>> >>>>> First, I'm not sure that the most common deployment case >>>>> >>> will have >>> >>>>> to translate between RADIUS-MIP6 and Diameter MIP6 >>>>> >> integrated. As >> >>>>> you know, 3GPP does not use RADIUS MIP6. It would be interesting >>>>> to see if someone has a valid scenario. >>>>> >>>>> Second, Diameter NASREQ/EAP already have some Grouped AVPs. So >>>>> the translation agent already have to cope with this. >>>>> >>>>> SO, I think that your comment is really valid and that we could >>>>> probably add a recommandation somewhere in RFC3588Bis >>>>> >> but I'm not >> >>>>> sure that this could be a MUST. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Julien >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>>> De : Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] >>>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 27 novembre 2008 14:01 >>>>>> À : Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com >>>>>> Cc : glenzorn@comcast.net; dromasca@avaya.com; BOURNELLE >>>>>> Julien RD-CORE-ISS; jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com; >>>>>> jouni.korhonen@nsn.com; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; >>>>>> charliep@wichorus.com; kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com >>>>>> Objet : Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of >>>>>> draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated >>>>>> >>>>>> What he said. >>>>>> >>>>>> jari >>>>>> >>>>>> Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen Zorn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing in this thread so far has come to even close to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> answering my >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> main concern: specifying two similar solutions (and >>>>>>>>> >>>> translation >>>> >>>>>>>>> between them) means more complexity and more work. >>>>>>>>> >>> Why is this >>> >>>>>>>>> complexity and work needed? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which complexity and work would that be? Translation >>>>>>>> >>>>>> between RADIUS >>>>>> >>>>>>>> and Diameter cannot be avoided, if that's the >>>>>>>> >>> problem you see. >>> >>>>>>> We're clearly not on the same page here. Let me try to >>>>>>> >>>>>> explain why I >>>>>> >>>>>>> believe why this is unnecessary complexity and work: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Consider another draft that has been discussed in RADEXT: >>>>>>> draft-aboba-radext-wlan. It would be possible to write a new >>>>>>> Internet-Draft that would define Diameter AVPs (in >>>>>>> >>> 255 range, >>> >>>>>>> possibly using grouped AVPs and other Diameter-only >>>>>>> >>> features) >>> >>>> for >>>> >>>>>>> exactly the same purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am claiming this would be a very bad idea, because it >>>>>>> >>>>> would mean >>>>> >>>>>>> more complexity and more work, and with little benefits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you're defining attributes for use in existing >>>>>>> >>>>>> messages (no new >>>>>> >>>>>>> Diameter application or anything), IMHO it should be done >>>>>>> >>>>>> in the 0-255 >>>>>> >>>>>>> range, even if that means Diameter features like grouping >>>>>>> >>>>>> need to be >>>>>> >>>>>>> avoided. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I understand your position right, you're saying it would >>>>>>> >>>>>> be OK to >>>>>> >>>>>>> have two different numbers for e.g. the >>>>>>> >>> Allowed-Called-Station- >>> >>>> Id >>>> >>>>>>> attribute? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So far, I have heard only explanations about how this >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> situation came >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to happen: somewhere down the line, two WGs ended up >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> taking on the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> work, and one of them (DIME) made decisions that made >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> sense locally >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (when considering only Diameter aspects), and their >>>>>>>>> >>>>> draft came to >>>>> >>>>>>>>> IESG first. >>>>>>>>> Interestingly enough, the other WG (MEXT) has >>>>>>>>> >> been working >> >>>> on a >>>> >>>>>>>>> RADIUS+Diameter solution (not a RADIUS-only solution!), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any work using RADIUS Attributes from the standard >>>>>>>> >>>>>> typespace may be >>>>>> >>>>>>>> trivially claimed to be a "RADIUS+Diameter solution" if no >>>>>>>> translation other than that specified in RFC 4005 & >>>>>>>> >>> RFC 3588 is >>> >>>>>>>> performed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. And I think such solutions often make sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In fact, however, draft-ietf-mip6-radius-06.txt (if that >>>>>>>> >>>>>> is what you >>>>>> >>>>>>>> are referring to) requires further translation: >>>>>>>> >> "MIP6-HA and >> >>>>>>>> HOA-IPv6 must be translated between their RADIUS >>>>>>>> >>>>> representation of >>>>> >>>>>>>> String to a Diameter Address format which requires that the >>>>>>>> AddressType field be set to 2 for IP6 (IP version 6)". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a bad design choice in mip6-radius-06 that could be >>>>>>> >>>> easily >>>> >>>>>>> fixed. If it used the same approach as was used for e.g. >>>>>>> Framed-IP-Address, no translation (beyond copying) would >>>>>>> >>>>> be needed. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Furthermore, a pretty good case could be made that >>>>>>>> >>> the draft in >>> >>>>>>>> question is not only not a "RADIUS+Diameter solution", but >>>>>>>> >>>>>> not even a >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "RADIUS-only solution" due to the novel semantics it >>>>>>>> >>>>>> assigns to the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Access-Accept message. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "novel semantics" probably refer to the "split >>>>>>> >>>>>> scenario" (which is >>>>>> >>>>>>> indeed more complex, and could be in a separate document). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and if they had sent their document to IESG first, we >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> probably would >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> not even consider publishing >>>>>>>>> >>> draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated. >>> >>>>>>>> It didn't get to the IESG first because it's not >>>>>>>> >> ready for >> >>>> prime >>>> >>>>>>>> time. I do find it interesting that a Security Area >>>>>>>> >>> Director >>> >>>> is >>>> >>>>>>>> ready to approve a document with such weak security >>>>>>>> >>> properties, >>> >>>>>>>> however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "weak security properties" refer to the "split >>>>>>> >>>>> scenario". The >>>>> >>>>>>> "integrated scenario" are ready for prime time, and are >>>>>>> >>>>>> delayed only >>>>>> >>>>>>> by editorial decision to keep them in the same text file. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Pasi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> AAA-DOCTORS mailing list >>>> AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> AAA-DOCTORS mailing list >>> AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ AAA-DOCTORS mailing list AAA-DOCTORS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Glen Zorn
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… julien.bournelle
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… lionel.morand
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Tina TSOU
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni korhonen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-… jouni korhonen