Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 15 October 2004 10:43 UTC
Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:45:34 +0000
Message-ID: <416FA9E0.8040302@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:43:44 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Reply-To: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Organization: None
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: josh_mendel@infonet.com
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
josh_mendel@infonet.com wrote: > > Hello Jari, > > Very minor, a missing period on the bottom of section 2.7. > "would first be converted in other1.example net to" > should be > "would first be converted in other1.example.net to" Thanks, this is now corrected. > Also, sorry to come in so late on the disccusion but just wanted to add > a comment on 2.7 Realm Construction as it pertains to roaming. The > proposed method seems to be opposite of what I see in practice today. > Typically what is commonly referred to as the prefix domain, the > portion before the '!', is used for the intermediary domains where the > suffix domain, portion after the '@', is used as the home domain. Not > only does it make it much more readable since the username@realm is > preserved at the end of the string, but it also takes away the need to > reorder the parts when proxying and is simpler for an intermediary > domain to just strip off its own domain in the front and the first '!' > and pass on the rest of the string. > > So in your example where you have > > other2.example.net!home.example.net!user@other1.example.net > > in practice today it would be written as > > other1.example.net!other2.example.net!user@home.example.net > > and sent from other1.example.net as > > other2.example.net!user@home.example.net > > and sent from other2.example.net as > > user@home.example.net > > Not sure it really makes much of a difference since both are recursive > just seems a little cleaner to me... I think we have had this discussion in the past already, and came to the conclusion which is in the current draft... --Jari -- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
- Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt Jari Arkko
- Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt josh_mendel
- Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt Jari Arkko
- Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt josh_mendel