Re: Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft issues?

Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com> Wed, 10 August 2005 21:51 UTC

Envelope-to: radiusext-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:51:27 +0000
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:51:16 -0700
From: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
To: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>
cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft issues?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0508101449050.10626@internaut.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

> The substantive issue with the draft-ietf-radext-diget-auth-03.txt seems
> to be how to deal with Diameter interoperability of the two different
> sources of nonce.  The general sense of the room at IETF-63 seemed to be
> that the Digest Auth draft needed to support both modes, and that the
> companion Diameter draft would need to follow suit.  This places the
> Diameter compatibility action item with the Diameter document.
>
> Does the WG at large agree?  Please reply.

Personally, I agree.  But then again, I was the person who first suggested
moving the  Diameter compatibility section to the Diameter document :)

> Assuming that we do agree, then what action item doe we have w.r.t. the
> Diameter document?

I think the implication is that the Diameter document (which has been in
simulaneous WG last call with Digest) needs to own the compatibility
section.

--
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: Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft… Nelson, David
Re: Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft… Alan DeKok
Re: Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft… Bernard Aboba
Do we have consensus on the Digest Auth draft iss… Nelson, David