Re: [Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-erp-03.txt

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: <dime@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:28 PM
Subject: [Dime] Comments on draft-ietf-dime-erp-03.txt


> Section 4 says:
>   If there is an ER server in the same domain as the authenticator
>   (local domain), Diameter routing MUST
>
>   QUESTION:
>      Should this say "SHOULD: instead of "MUST"?
>
>   be configured so that this ERP/DER message reaches this server, even
>   if the Destination-Realm is not the local domain.
> I wonder what the purpose of this paragraph might be: why would it be
> necessary to configure Diameter routing at all?  Actually, it seems like
> this passage could break the ERP app, since the very next paragraph says
> that the message should be routed to the bootstrapped ER server in the
> re-authentication case.  This seems like the correct behavior, so why 
> modify
> it?
>
>
> Section 4 says:
>   When an ER server receives the ERP/DER message, it searches its local
>   database for a root key
>
>   FFS:
>      and authorization state?
> There seems to be some confusion here: an ER server will _never_ receive 
> an
> ERP/DER message, since that is a _Diameter_ message, not an EAP message.
> Actually, the confusion starts in the Introduction: "a new Diameter ERP
> application to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the 
> ER
> server".  "Authenticator" is a technical term & refers to an EAP protocol
> entity, not a Diameter entity, so how can send Diameter messages? 
> Clearing
> up this confusion might go a long way toward making an acceptable
> specification.
True. We need to work it out. Perhaps we have to separate the logical 
functional entity for EAP stuff, and the roles of Diameter stuff.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime