RE: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priority, Delegated Prefix, etc.)
"Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Wed, 07 June 2006 16:22 UTC
Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:22:19 +0000
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priority, Delegated Prefix, etc.)
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:22:10 +0300
Message-ID: <AAB4B3D3CF0F454F98272CBE187FDE2F0A9D7302@is0004avexu1.global.avaya.com>
Thread-Topic: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priority, Delegated Prefix, etc.)
Thread-Index: AcaKTjZbBR2dqUhDSq6d09zW3jTydgAACLEQ
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Cc: rdroms@cisco.com
FWIW - This proposal would answer my concerns expressed in the COMMENTs made vs. the two documents on the IESG agenda this week. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:19 PM > To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Cc: rdroms@cisco.com > Subject: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priority, > Delegated Prefix, etc.) > > Jari Arkko has suggested a new template for Diameter > Considerations sections in RADEXT WG documents. I believe > this suggestion applies to both the VLAN/Priority and > Delegated Prefix attributes. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------ > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] > Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 3:29 AM > To: iesg@ietf.org > Cc: radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-vlan > > > Discuss: > I am raising an issue that is largely about the same text as > Dan already commented on. But the main issue is not > inconsistency in this specification but rather the need to > fulfill requirements from the WG's charter and the desire to > keep the RADIUS and Diameter protocols interoperable through gateways. > > Fortunately, I think we can correct this issue relatively easily. > > The document said this: > > >4. Diameter Considerations > > > > Diameter needs to define identical attributes with the same Type > > values. The attributes should be available as part of the NASREQ > > application [RFC4005], as well as the Diameter EAP application > > [RFC4072]. > > But RADEXT charter says: > > >All RADIUS work MUST be compatible with equivalent facilities in > >Diameter. Where possible, new attributes should be defined > so that the > >same attribute can be used in both RADIUS and Diameter without > >translation. > > In this case I believe there is no technical reason to > require different attributes. I would suggest the following > contents for Section 4: > > When used in Diameter, the attributes defined in this > specification can be used as Diameter AVPs from the > Code space 1-255, i.e., RADIUS attribute compatibility > space. No additional Diameter Code values are therefore > allocated. The data types of the attributes are as > follows: > > Egress-VLANID OctetString > Ingress-Filters Enumerated > Egress-VLAN-Name UTF8String > User-Priority-Table OctetString > > The attributes in this specification have no special > translation requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or > RADIUS to Diameter gateways, i.e., the attributes > are copied as is, except for changes relating to > headers, alignment, and padding. See also > [RFC 3588] Section 4.1 and [RFC 4005] Section 9. > > What this specification says about the applicability > of the attributes for RADIUS Access-Request applies > in Diameter to AA-Request [RFC 4005] or Diameter-EAP-Request > [RFC 4072]. What is said about Access-Challenge applies > in Diameter to AA-Answer [RFC 4005] or Diameter-EAP-Answer > [RFC 4072] with Result-Code AVP set to > DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH. > > What is said about Access-Accept applies in Diameter > to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer that indicates > success. Similarly, what is said about Access-Reject > applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer > that indicates failure. > > What is said about COA-Request applies in Diameter > to Re-Auth-Request [RFC 4005]. > > What is said about Accounting-Request applies to > Diameter Accounting-Request [RFC 4005] as well. > > > > -- > 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/> > -- 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: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priorit… Jari Arkko
- RE: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priorit… Greg Weber (gdweber)
- RE: Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priorit… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Diameter Considerations Section (VLAN/Priority, D… Bernard Aboba