Re: [HOKEY] Change proposal for ERP-AAK - 1: NAS-Identifier Redefining

On 10/9/2011 9:39 AM, Zhen Cao wrote:

> I think  we should be careful adding more semantics to the current
> tools, otherwise it takes longer to converge.

Sorry, I don't understand.

> 
> How about re-use the NAS-Id and in the string part, make it a
> FQDN-alike way, then that depends on the implementation only.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 4:20 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> As we discussed on the list to draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak, NAS Identifier
>>> defined in the section 5.32 of RFC2865
>>> is not appropriate to be used in the inter-realm hanover case. Since
>>> CAP(s) and/or SAP are not global identifier
>>> and the value they are choosing may conflict with each other, therefore
>>> I propose to redefine NAS-Identifier,
>>> in other words, abandon using NAS-Identifer in the
>>> draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak-05, instead, replace it with CAP-Identifier
>>> as belows:
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>>    CAP-Identifier: This is carried in a TLV
>>>
>>>    payload. The type is TBD. This attribute contains a string
>>> identifying the Candidate Access Points prior to the
>>>
>>>    arrival of the MH at the Candidate Access Network (CAN).It is used by
>>> the SAP to advertise the identifier(s) of
>>>
>>>    CAP(s) to the peer and EA server.
>>>
>>> "
>>
>> OK, but this needs a format specification (FQDN might be good).
>>
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>> -Qin
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> HOKEY mailing list
>>> HOKEY@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> HOKEY mailing list
>> HOKEY@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
>>
> 
> 
> 