Re: [netext] Consensus call for adopting draft-xia-netext-radius-00 as WG document

Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com> Fri, 23 April 2010 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7673A6946 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.562, BAYES_05=-1.11, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 8o0CuC5tXIuf for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21873A690D for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L1C001ZF3DD2H@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:39:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L1C00BP63DDHC@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:39:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from X24512z ([10.124.12.81]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L1C00BM03DBBW@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for netext@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:39:13 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:39:10 -0500
From: Frank Xia <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <000001cae291$1b8b9bf0$52a2d3d0$@net>
To: 'Glen Zorn' <gwz@net-zen.net>, netext@ietf.org
Message-id: <003201cae2f2$be23ca20$510c7c0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcriVJBTgl8pLxP7zUyjkmgyPr/2xAAOZkBAABiqgbA=
References: <C7F611E0.744C%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> <000001cae291$1b8b9bf0$52a2d3d0$@net>
Cc: netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call for adopting draft-xia-netext-radius-00 as WG document
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:39:40 -0000

Hi Glen

Thank for your insightful review as an AAA expert!

Please check my inline reply.

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Glen Zorn
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:00 PM
To: netext@ietf.org
Cc: netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call for adopting draft-xia-netext-radius-00
as WG document

Basavaraj Patil [mailto://Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com] writes:

> Hello,
> 
> At IETF77 we had consensus on adopting I-D: draft-xia-netext-radius-00
> as a
> WG document.
> 
> This is a followup on the ML w.r.t the consensus reached at IETF77.
> 
> If you have any concerns or objections to adopting this I-D as a Netext
> WG
> document, please speak up (on the list or send a note to the chairs).

I have no objections to the adoption of the draft but a quick review of the
document does raise a few issues.  There are a few references to Diameter
that seem irrelevant and lots of grammatical errors, 
Frank=>We will have a thorough self-check before submitting the draft.

but the most obvious
question is of the consistent duplication of attributes. 
For example, why are both PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv6-Address &
PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv6-Address
defined?  Are both attributes expected to occur the same RADIUS message? 
Frank=>Yes.  When a mobile node moves into a visited network, it has choice
to 
anchor home LMA or visited LMA based on its profile and carrier's policy.

If so, this should be stated; 
Frank=>We will.

if not then there is no need, AFAICT, for two
attributes to be defined.  The IANA Considerations section doesn't say
whether the attribute numbers are to be assigned from the standard attribute
namespace but I assume that they are; 
Frank=>You are right.

that space is small & rapidly being
depleted, so I think that the unnecessary creation of standard RADIUS
attributes should be avoided.
Frank=>Your concerns make sense. However, we think it is necessary
to have two attributes as WiMAX does.

> 
> -Chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext


_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext