Re: [Dime] DIME Charter Update

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 8, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:

> jouni korhonen [mailto://[e-mail]] writes:
>
> ...
>
>>> The IETF has completed work on the Diameter Base protocol and is
>>> working on revising the base protocol specification. There is on-
>> going
>>> work on defining RADIUS extensions and the DIME WG will ensure
>>> that work done in RADEXT is also available for Diameter.
>
> The mandating of forward as well as backward compatibility with  
> RADIUS is an
> _extremely_ bad idea, IMHO.  It may be harmless currently, since the
> probability of useful extensions to RADIUS being produced by the  
> RADIUS
> Extensions WG appears to be close to zero, but it sets a bad  
> precedent.


Seems that I forgot to add my comments after quoting text in my  
reply ;) Anyway, Glen put my thoughts nicely here. I more or less  
share the same concern Glen has.

Cheers,
	Jouni


>
>
> ...
>
>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Should we add draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-00.txt to charter
>> (that contains the extracted parts from mip6-split I-D due identified
>> IPRs). Even if this draft is trivial and will be informational,  
>> having
>> it as a WG item would be nice.. or?
>
> Given the history of the IETF, it would be nice only if you really  
> want to
> slow the progress of the draft; otherwise, if it really is both  
> trivial &
> informational, why not submit it directly to the RFC Editor & be  
> done w/it?
>
> ...
>