Re: [radext] Adoption call for draft-hartman-radext-bigger-packets

[Peter Deacon <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Alan DeKok wrote:

> Peter Deacon wrote:
>> I do not support adoption at this time.  Seeing value in continuing to
>> support UDP/DTLS no bridge is available for CoA and Accounting.  Noting
>> also did not support rational in Alex's draft for ignoring this issue
>> for reasons explained in detail earlier on this list.

>  That is unnecessary, for reasons explained in detail earlier on this list.

There is no defined mechanism for coalescing accounting sessions. 
Multi-Session-Id is inter-session rather than intra-session.

Binding CoA to authorization is not something we can support seeing value 
in maintaining autonomy to manage admitted sessions separately from 
authorization.

>> If systems are to start transmitting more than max size I prefer a less
>> permissive environment where some indication of support is required up
>> front prior to transmitting larger messages.  It can be a manual setting
>> or an automatic "discovery" yet would prefer something "MUST" be indicated.

>  The draft discusses negotiation of large packets, which seems to 
> address the above concerns.

A list of optional procedures are defined.  What I don't see is where it 
says one of them must be followed or an implementation must not assume 
support for larger packets.

regards,
Peter