IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HOKEY] AD review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 13 January 2012 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B97811E80A3 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j27edxfxI7n9 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931C211E8075 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:33:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXP00480ZBXMI@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXP00KCFZBXX0@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for hokey@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGK49541; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:32 +0800
Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:23 +0800
Received: from w53375q (10.138.41.130) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:23 +0800
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:33:22 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.130]
To: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-id: <40DE8C7786C94D4CA9371427D8707124@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <4ECA9AD5.3050409@cs.tcd.ie> <B5D72BE948614EB6BA4D5DCDD907074C@china.huawei.com> <4ECE2EC9.6040408@cs.tcd.ie> <03FB617435B7413D8F0381C5D4689806@china.huawei.com> <4ECE4300.8070901@cs.tcd.ie> <CAProHAT4dSpfeAqbDcH7YNiZC6N0bQ9Wgnq3EqzpvXkHoTAx6g@mail.gmail.com> <4F0EB323.2090309@cs.tcd.ie> <CAProHATL1WerjbK=7zJOmwcWi41J+S8Rss6wUKzKT6QcfQ-kZA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>, "Cao, Zhen" <caozhen@chinamobile.com>, hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] AD review of draft-ietf-hokey-erp-aak
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 04:33:43 -0000

>>> #33, p11 - Section 7 says a new message "should" be defined - who's
>>> gonna do that where? Seems odd that its not here.
>>>
>>> [CZ]: Could be removed if you think odd.
>>
>>
>> I think it is odd. Is this something that's needed though? If
>> so, who's doing the work or in what document is the required
>> message defined? What are the consequences of that not being
>> defined?


[Qin]: Just for clarification.
I think this is potential future work that needs to be done in DIME working group.
That is to say we may need to specify new Diameter extension or define new AVP to carry 
New TLV we defined in ERP AAK document. Currently this work hasn't been initiated.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email