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