Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt

josh_mendel@infonet.com Fri, 15 October 2004 00:17 UTC

Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:26:26 +0000
To: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-02.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OF7096523E.A0CE6CBD-ON88256F2D.0073EC25-88256F2E.00019948@infonet.com>
From: josh_mendel@infonet.com
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:17:24 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0001994588256F2E_="

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"


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...
Thanks and regards,
Josh