Subject: [Dime] RE: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0500

Bernard Aboba writes...
 
> One of the items on the DIME WG agenda will probably be RFC 3588bis,
> which includes the definition of the NAS-Filter-Rule syntax.  
> However, the DIME WG milestones involve bringing RFC 3588 to Draft
> Standard, which typically precludes addition of new features.

Does that mean that DIME has to choose between advancing to the base
Diameter protocol to DS and maintaining compatibility with RADIUS
Extensions?  Both are charter items for DIME.  Tough choice.

I think it would be a mistake for RADEXT to standardize a
non-interoperable extension to NAS-Filter-Rule, and that our charter
requirement of maintaining Diameter compatibility would potentially
preclude such action, in any event.

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:18:09 +0200

David,

My opinion is:

>Does that mean that DIME has to choose between advancing to 
>the base Diameter protocol to DS and maintaining compatibility 
>with RADIUS Extensions?  Both are charter items for DIME.  
>Tough choice.
>
>non-interoperable extension to NAS-Filter-Rule, and that our 
>charter requirement of maintaining Diameter compatibility 
>would potentially preclude such action, in any event.

Better to do what is correct.  The DiME wg would like feedback about
the NAS-Filter-Rule - is the communitity happy with the current
definition,
or does it want to be improved or changed.

John

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:30:32 -0800

>Extensions?

Not necessarily.  It may be possible to bring RFC 3588bis to Draft Standard 
while handling NAS-Filter-Rule extensions in another document, at Proposed 
Standard.

At this point, I'm not clear about what will be covered in the Diameter 
Interop event (for example, how will interop testing of the 
"NAS-Filter-Rule" feature be handled?)

>preclude such action, in any event.

Right. The original NAS-Filter-Rule syntax was defined in RFC 3588, and the 
NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is defined in RFC 4005, so that changes to the 
syntax cannot evolve independently without impacting Diameter.