From francois@tera.ics.keio.ac.jp Tue May 3 08:46:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0932E06B7 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.022 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0IlMVjF4DU56 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maro.tera.ics.keio.ac.jp (maro.tera.ics.keio.ac.jp [131.113.71.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D281CE06E0 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by maro.tera.ics.keio.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DFF43B for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 00:31:22 +0900 (JST) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so178568vws.31 for ; Tue, 03 May 2011 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.73.195 with SMTP id n3mr1795308vdv.28.1304436680818; Tue, 03 May 2011 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.186.231 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 17:31:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Francois Bard To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071c8defdfe3804a260d487 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 04 May 2011 02:29:02 -0700 Subject: [Dime] MIP-MN-HA-MSA in RFC 5778 (Diameter MIPv6 HA-to-AAAH Support) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 15:58:37 -0000 --20cf3071c8defdfe3804a260d487 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello, I am confused by the presence of this AVP in the list page 19, while it reads page 24 section 6.12. " [...] for use with the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol ". What's more, this AVP doesn't appear page 28 section 8.1. on the DER or DEA Command-Code Table. It doesn't seem to be a sub-AVP to a grouped AVP either. Any opinion about this ? Best regards, Francois Bard --20cf3071c8defdfe3804a260d487 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

I am confused by the presence of this AVP in the = list page 19, while it reads page 24 section 6.12. " [...] for use wit= h the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol ".
What's more= , this AVP doesn't appear page 28 section 8.1. on the DER or DEA Comman= d-Code Table. It doesn't seem to be a sub-AVP to a grouped AVP either.<= /div>

Any opinion about this ?

Best = regards,
Francois Bard
--20cf3071c8defdfe3804a260d487-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Wed May 4 04:15:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B520E073E; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:15:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MuVNexNiDxYK; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617EAE069E; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:15:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110504111502.14150.49482.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 04:15:02 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-05.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 11:15:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Base Protocol MIB Author(s) : G. Zorn Filename : draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-05.txt Pages : 51 Date : 2011-05-04 Along with providing support for certain basic authentication, authorization and accounting functions, the Diameter protocol is designed to provide a framework for AAA applications. This document defines the Management Information Base (MIB) module which describes the minimum set of objects needed to manage an implementation of the Diameter protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-04041039.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Wed May 4 04:30:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448E4E0749; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:30:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.525 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6ltjUXTzaQ5; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FB6E070C; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:30:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110504113002.17964.72060.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 04:30:02 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-erp-06.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 11:30:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) Author(s) : J. Bournelle, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-erp-06.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-05-04 The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re- authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER) server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the cryptographic material needed by the re-authentication server. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-erp-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-erp-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-04042349.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 5 00:28:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C53E068C; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:28:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V6CFw3TUFoxh; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E991E0651; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:28:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110505072826.13302.17226.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 00:28:26 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 07:28:27 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing Author(s) : Glen Zorn Qin Wu Marco Liebsch Jouni Korhonen Filename : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2011-05-05 In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are ro= uted directly by the MAG without involving the LMA. In order to establish a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt From sunseawq@huawei.com Thu May 5 00:39:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEBBE070E for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oyMz2IQRNwGJ for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E848DE0704 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 00:39:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKP0089TP5KRB@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 15:36:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKP001EPP5JGT@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 15:36:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.138.41.70]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LKP003W6P5JG0@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 15:36:55 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 15:40:26 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Message-id: <026901cc0af7$b369b170$46298a0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_clXO4Nr0iNUVO5lNjPnxpA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org, dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Step forward for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 07:39:58 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_clXO4Nr0iNUVO5lNjPnxpA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi,all: The new version of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr is ready at the following link: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt which address the minor comments received from Jouni in the last Prague meeting. Chairs, I believe this draft is ready for WGLC. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:28 PM Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing > Author(s) : Glen Zorn > Qin Wu > Marco Liebsch > Jouni Korhonen > Filename : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2011-05-05 > > In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the > Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically > tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing. The term > "localized routing" refers to a method by which packets are routed > directly by the MAG without involving the LMA. In order to establish > a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a > Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished: > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --Boundary_(ID_clXO4Nr0iNUVO5lNjPnxpA) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi,all:
The new version of draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr is ready at the following link:
which address the minor comments received from Jouni in the last Prague meeting.
Chairs, I believe this draft is ready for WGLC.
 
Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:28 PM
Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF.
>
> Title           : Diameter Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Localized Routing
> Author(s)       : Glen Zorn
>                          Qin Wu
>                          Marco Liebsch
>                          Jouni Korhonen
> Filename        : draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt
> Pages           : 13
> Date            : 2011-05-05
>
>   In Proxy Mobile IPv6, packets received from a Mobile Node (MN) by the
>   Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) to which it is attached are typically
>   tunneled to a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) for routing.  The term
>   &quot;localized routing&quot; refers to a method by which packets are routed
>   directly by the MAG without involving the LMA.  In order to establish
>   a localized routing session between two Mobile Access Gateways in a
>   Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, two tasks must be accomplished:
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04.txt
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --Boundary_(ID_clXO4Nr0iNUVO5lNjPnxpA)-- From dromasca@avaya.com Thu May 5 07:59:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FCFE0682 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lS+4feTnhpq for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED3DE0593 for ; Thu, 5 May 2011 07:59:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: An8HAIu4wk2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACYUY1ld4hynF+DWAKbdYYHBJQKihE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,319,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="187142466" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2011 10:49:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,319,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="647974588" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2011 10:49:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 16:49:30 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Thread-Index: AcwLM6OwJj1j0g4PTJOYEHBonlWjAg== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 14:59:40 -0000 Hi,=20 Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt. While the document is in pretty good shape, there are a few key technical and editorial issues that need to be addressed before we can send the document to IETF Last Call.=20 See below. Technical requirements are marked Tx and Editorial requirements are marked Ex.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 T1. In the Abstract section I find the following:=20 > This document therefore extends the functionality offered by [RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used. Would not this imply that the document should have the note 'Updates RFC 5779 - when approved' in the header?=20 T2. In any case it seems to me that RFC 5778 should rather be a Normative Reference rather than an Informative reference.=20 E1. [RFC5778] is the correct label for the reference and not [RFC 5778] E2. In Section 1 s/IKEv2 protocol allows/The IKEv2 protocol allows/ E3. Expand HAAA at the first occurrence which is in Section 1 E4. Section 4.2 - s/IKE_SA correspond/IKE_SA corresponds/ E5. Section 9 IANA Considerations needs a serious re-write. The first paragraph should not use verbs at past time as we are describing here codes and values defined in this specification. All the other sections need to be explicit about what allocations are required from IANA. For example it would be good to use the format 'IANA is required to allocate the following AVP Codes: IKEv2 Nonces - TBD5, Ni - TBD5, etc.' From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon May 9 01:45:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4594E06CF; Mon, 9 May 2011 01:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOX6JIHcEzPO; Mon, 9 May 2011 01:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFFDE06C0; Mon, 9 May 2011 01:45:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110509084501.16394.68457.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 01:45:01 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-07.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 08:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter S-NAPTR Usage Author(s) : M. Jones, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-07.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2011-05-09 The Diameter base protocol specifies mechanisms whereby a given realm may advertise Diameter nodes and the supported transport protocol. However, these mechanisms do not reveal the Diameter applications that each node supports. A peer outside the realm would have to perform a Diameter capability exchange with every node until it discovers one that supports the required application. This document updates [RFC3588] and describes an improvement using an extended format for the Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag that allows for discovery of the supported applications without doing Diameter capability exchange beforehand. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-09014117.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon May 9 06:30:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFCCE0726; Mon, 9 May 2011 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ouZjvscisNmI; Mon, 9 May 2011 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195EBE06CC; Mon, 9 May 2011 06:30:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110509133002.17321.6526.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 06:30:02 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-08.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:30:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter S-NAPTR Usage Author(s) : M. Jones, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-08.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2011-05-09 The Diameter base protocol specifies mechanisms whereby a given realm may advertise Diameter nodes and the supported transport protocol. However, these mechanisms do not reveal the Diameter applications that each node supports. A peer outside the realm would have to perform a Diameter capability exchange with every node until it discovers one that supports the required application. This document updates [RFC3588] and describes an improvement using an extended format for the Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag that allows for discovery of the supported applications without doing Diameter capability exchange beforehand. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-extended-naptr-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-09062714.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon May 9 09:30:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D124E0857; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jYkMBaiYpxiE; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFE7E0862; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110509163003.30973.8375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:30:03 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:30:11 -0000 --NextPart A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction Author(s) : V. Cakulev, et al Filename : draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-04-19 The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security associations (SAs) between the respective parties. IKEv2 supports several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets. With [RFC 5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been specified. However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP and did not include support for pre-shared secret based authentication available with IKEv2. This document therefore extends the functionality offered by [RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-09092519.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org Fri May 6 18:27:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776B3E0676 for ; Fri, 6 May 2011 18:27:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6I5uMYajObP for ; Fri, 6 May 2011 18:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C308E064B for ; Fri, 6 May 2011 18:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QIWIk-0005Fq-Ca; Fri, 06 May 2011 18:27:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "dime issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net X-Trac-Project: dime Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 01:27:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/21#comment:1 Message-ID: <066.d3d0d3b9eb04dd4064401da2022354d2@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <057.183c15a66cdfb38d9d333c1e501a2367@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 21 In-Reply-To: <057.183c15a66cdfb38d9d333c1e501a2367@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net, dime@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20110507012723.1C308E064B@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 18:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 May 2011 10:42:56 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #21: typo X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Reply-To: dime@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 01:27:23 -0000 #21: typo Changes (by gwz@…): * owner: => draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@… -- --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Reporter: gwz@… | Owner: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: Component: rfc3588bis | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: dime From alper.yegin@yegin.org Thu May 12 11:30:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFA9E072B for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aluykxCGgh+M for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225DBE06A1 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ibm ([12.166.168.253]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LfCG8-1PwWME1wr2-00ojCQ; Thu, 12 May 2011 14:30:19 -0400 From: "Alper Yegin" To: References: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:30:16 +0300 Message-ID: <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcuqXd0zA6Jy1qjOQgev8doH6s6URhmdBVEQ Content-Language: en-us X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:RRMd4wihL9MClkpvIMT/cHxWbbiokddkDaoKZpfjBJR arZ8I9jAisKWzxBl/CAlbU6n4EFNRRnzM1flyXGpsS2F7eOghE GRWsvzMm1mknYEbL4Zdl6FxtKxTK+L4sW1dg4MppuzX5+5m2NY Ih8iQ/2S1HvbDwGpbrteveR4tMgg3nMWkKxifjtYs2fXOsDok0 Okmvc9+jfU6QqWYcIQj8Pe56kFMdAM3GzqalX55wq0= Subject: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 18:30:21 -0000 Question: What is the distinction between these two AVPs? If an implementation includes vendor-specific extensions, some of which are coming from the vendor (manufacturer) itself, and others from a Forum spec it is complying to, then which value goes into which AVP? Does "manufacturer id" go into "Vendor-Id", and "Forum's IANA-assigned Enterprise id" go into "Supported-Vendor-Id"? RFC says: 5.3.6. Supported-Vendor-Id AVP The Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 265) is of type Unsigned32 and contains the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO] value assigned to a vendor other than the device vendor. This is used in the CER and CEA messages in order to inform the peer that the sender supports (a subset of) the vendor-specific AVPs defined by the vendor identified in this AVP. What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to the Forum in the aforementioned example? Thanks. Alper From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu May 12 12:46:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82E9E07CF for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BG-tlDwMWRvG for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A715FE07CB for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so668242eye.31 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=rGONEgem4/TsMQVV7wdNiAgm9y7FQCUnhT8SKbd5ZVA=; b=obl/70Kl+bB2VTOtNubCTRcy/F3rNHVHniGzHLb+o7uxR3WjqotYsmgfmArNasLeyx G7GhtZs4SaU8wdHYF1OvbM7qIkOzSfBfxCR/hTOkKy5y4LjH+g+/h+5dgxaTULotCMFU 7f6MQLvtTm/CFASybt4JFBGy3iVQPQywf6+qc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=YHVfqaH/93wdOcMJ/9mQFeFxY5L4eFqYptJUG+g79+0zEycgqI5rdxrcSD0acIIa+1 kYZoe1Y+LrwBWLr/DvOWyDCDDelqe/x5EtI3I94t7WLPDRf95beRLKzVGA7WyRyaOJdX PHuAeahNqr7s0bcAuWVUI0Bd1OeMm1M5a7gfo= Received: by 10.213.35.67 with SMTP id o3mr893735ebd.59.1305229577944; Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.65.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x5sm926342eea.14.2011.05.12.12.46.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 May 2011 12:46:17 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:46:15 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85A262FF-93ED-41A4-A278-40DBBCE0B0BA@gmail.com> References: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> To: Alper Yegin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:46:21 -0000 Hi, On May 12, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Alper Yegin wrote: > What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to = the > Forum in the aforementioned example? >=20 > Thanks. Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in it. = The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific = extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA = exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X = would be put into Vendor-Id AVP. - Jouni >=20 > Alper >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From jounikor@gmail.com Thu May 12 13:23:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4779E0717 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhFPGDiFSlsD for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B14E06A1 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so678459eye.31 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=trT2Oui0xK5dxTT4pzOb7CvFvEh6/hnPWr6fWvzcQaU=; b=AMrZqjJEMnGuz6VCUNv7ggO8TyegAz4kmFlhV+O+y++GWuzFmGJeKnBL5KnvpWFu6d Hhso5k0N8kMEmAIGYdfxyAUEHCQgHQiwxG76ZJo2AVGKzfEkcvSRqfMroipWkl/g0vW9 sQTgVKDeJbr82q/iSiYdnGTFympiASGJRVItg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=snLKKUx+UbI1CoRymllaQdzWlhtn/8WPvLiNOMzjPXJkmkH8jHisqiacQyPjVC2VZX qlnB/3YqcDMCeqSAqH51N4xkM6qM+qyho1lXmZRpbbZRa/dTE1Yfeja0zAHiRpBrb/Vm Fx3Ay1KZ6FaWSZNKPuuvMj6DrgcDvTb8oKL9c= Received: by 10.213.28.206 with SMTP id n14mr424492ebc.25.1305231814059; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.65.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y3sm944051eeh.23.2011.05.12.13.23.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 May 2011 13:23:33 -0700 (PDT) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 23:23:31 +0300 Message-Id: <000B8A61-C122-4AF7-8681-F2DFAB2B085A@gmail.com> To: dime@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:33:37 -0700 Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:23:35 -0000 Folks, This email will start two weeks WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04 = ending 26th May 23:59 CET+1. Please review the document and upload any = possible found issues into the issue tracker. The authors are encouraged to solicit for reviews from people working on = PMIPv6 and localized routing topics. - Jouni (in a co-chair role)= From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu May 12 13:41:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04103E07DC for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQQfx76UXGi6 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EFEE07D5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so683274eye.31 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=sds/0e38/zQMscEvhgErn66tmWqJKeEEturWKIKErDw=; b=IkmVxWlVxyMY/OZKp5jjvTgDdBAWC9rEPcp2mBSwScvwR8bz6/CzwH8Gpiw5VfT9e7 HdU5ByKmiufz+BRnm3CFXZ9lTy1R9O/c7JuN5O1IfIAsnZXRroXiFkQn8q8/pNDHP440 58OoVnleUYsIDwa9CffBhOlVHiSsE7ySUGriY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=b9h2c8WDvrng95Pc0f5pIVJI6dV1kpCIWRrZgAvTPVGKEoMRMwk2z1eQRmSF1ulVlS 1XGu4ROe1GiHhaxzEij7pDuvvrUXFzGTeNMyxpP8uUioZCyfjtj04NatN6SAQe6w1Trk kxTsoaG8YgOUL1pP5cnCJrkaxKQkWjsydwVPc= Received: by 10.213.4.7 with SMTP id 7mr419562ebp.75.1305232889190; Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-65-87.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.65.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm951658eeh.13.2011.05.12.13.41.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 May 2011 13:41:28 -0700 (PDT) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 23:41:26 +0300 Message-Id: To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 20:41:31 -0000 Folks, [sorry if you received this multiple times. Issues with my mail] This email will start two weeks WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr-04 = ending 26th May 23:59 CET+1. Please review the document and upload any = possible found issues into the issue tracker. The authors are encouraged to solicit for reviews from people working on = PMIPv6 and localized routing topics. - Jouni (in a co-chair role)= From alper.yegin@yegin.org Thu May 12 18:42:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3CFE0593 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 457u+7VzV3QH for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F96E0680 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 18:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ibm ([12.166.168.10]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LeeAA-1Pvr1H1EAY-00qA9q; Thu, 12 May 2011 21:42:15 -0400 From: "Alper Yegin" To: "'jouni korhonen'" References: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> <85A262FF-93ED-41A4-A278-40DBBCE0B0BA@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <85A262FF-93ED-41A4-A278-40DBBCE0B0BA@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 04:42:12 +0300 Message-ID: <00bc01cc110e$fd2f94b0$f78ebe10$@yegin@yegin.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcwQ3UPo3swTzzgIT9CkKtoLn1HdzwAMWCmw Content-Language: en-us X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:OOlk+qVxPdcxp6HS6mJqVWazC/Yge9WvpovZOPWKtxM +UfCvvpV9HygFMzUdD7yWKCYkwvTR1qJdHnNn/1KJXPgQDrYuI AheFlyk1qs/vexUGwW36Lu77glO5cwet0+n9Q1vzljxpFRQVhi vDFH7akchnyBLJZzo0Yoox/Mbyf+10a/5tGFWbyoF7HkTcqZPT L0z0wLrVp9981CSlexHt8WkuAhdHtRxXsM+00Z4zWE= Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 01:42:22 -0000 > > What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to > the > > Forum in the aforementioned example? > > > > Thanks. > > Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in > it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific > extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA > exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X > would be put into Vendor-Id AVP. If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions from SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried in Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec? Alper > > - Jouni > > > > > > > > Alper > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu May 12 23:38:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 233D1E06F7 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGfDhOqx0Ubp for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B92E06A7 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so991753yxk.31 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=qnh7GuKfpr0RAwKJq1+olc8YDjhh+vpkuL7d+dHhZsg=; b=RKBMvZboPhqsRgtWOSwO/gUrfAjrxY4qjTXCaHXkyrZ0CbeYHrxQCf50JCbxieduAO pFJdAxk2XMYLmFxPCRIQgoF2HCawGo8XEREMBz8fFL0ta0fKfQphbNy0HnZUsPSlNCfP 6c80nOETNSxv0STiVJ2nfo5j8/oaiNyda6QmE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=KereY7Pein0yfksKmq4bWWM3YPM9Bl61SrLz9aaVa2kcENhsVYNabiZH7LaUrA2sf9 ky3eFDlttYVwHo8t1Qqk29hnApMLwckcCsLWme5X9Duvvb0N2Uv5XrYRhrmyxrJOlCk6 CG3wJV6luV20oqIIx855MUqKELSuRNCaaRDtQ= Received: by 10.151.88.12 with SMTP id q12mr1154539ybl.271.1305268698611; Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.255.139.186] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t23sm291012yhm.52.2011.05.12.23.38.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 May 2011 23:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <00bc01cc110e$fd2f94b0$f78ebe10$@yegin@yegin.org> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:38:09 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <378BC67B-8A59-4EEB-AC48-D0D00D20EC61@gmail.com> References: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> <85A262FF-93ED-41A4-A278-40DBBCE0B0BA@gmail.com> <00bc01cc110e$fd2f94b0$f78ebe10$@yegin@yegin.org> To: Alper Yegin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 06:38:20 -0000 Hi, On May 13, 2011, at 4:42 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: >>> What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to >> the >>> Forum in the aforementioned example? >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in >> it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific >> extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA >> exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X >> would be put into Vendor-Id AVP. > > > If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions from > SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried in > Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec? Vendor and SDO/Forum do not make difference if they have their own SMI codes. - Jouni > > Alper > > >> >> - Jouni >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Alper >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DiME mailing list >>> DiME@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > From sachidananda.karkala@huawei.com Fri May 13 05:09:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5486E06FA for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6d6ctChcPLSe for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8521E06C1 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 05:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LL400K9VV0QSC@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2011 20:07:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LL400AX5V0OL2@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2011 20:07:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.59) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 13 May 2011 20:07:31 +0800 Received: from SZXEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.253]) by szxeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([fe80::75b7:3db9:fedc:a56d%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 13 May 2011 20:07:25 +0800 Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:07:25 +0000 From: Sachidananda Karkala X-Originating-IP: [10.18.86.48] To: "dime@ietf.org" Message-id: <9AC0ECCAB358F142966C7D980BE5C83E05D402@szxeml505-mbx.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_vM7AGZwg/8B9PifHlMSXSw)" Content-language: en-US Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: [RFC 3588, RFC 4006] Usage of experimental resultcode AVP in vendor extension of DCCA Thread-index: AcwRZprhhTvL/jXaRYWDA9ATay1pbQ== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Subject: [Dime] [RFC 3588, RFC 4006] Usage of experimental resultcode AVP in vendor extension of DCCA X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:06:12 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_vM7AGZwg/8B9PifHlMSXSw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, For vendor extension of DCCA (Application Id = 4), is it allowed to return both result code AVP and experimental result AVP in the response to Credit Control Request? The RFC 4006 does not mention about the usage of experimental result code AVP. RFC 3588 talks about usage of experimental result code AVP in case of vendor specific applications. But it is not very clear on the usage if the vendor is extending the IANA registered application (i.e., DCCA). Kindly help. -Sachidananda --Boundary_(ID_vM7AGZwg/8B9PifHlMSXSw) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

For vendor extension of DCCA (Application= Id =3D 4), is it allowed to return both result code AVP and experimental r= esult AVP in the response to Credit Control Request?

 

The RFC 4006 does not mention about the u= sage of experimental result code AVP. RFC 3588 talks about usage of experim= ental result code AVP in case of vendor specific applications. But it is not very clear on the usage if the vendor is extending the IANA = registered application (i.e., DCCA).

 

Kindly help.

 

-Sachidananda

 

--Boundary_(ID_vM7AGZwg/8B9PifHlMSXSw)-- From gwz@net-zen.net Fri May 13 18:11:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFD5E0703 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 18:11:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTa0trHU3lV7 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth03.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth03.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D81ECE06A3 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23695 invoked from network); 14 May 2011 01:11:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.71.84) by smtpauth03.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.183) with ESMTP; 14 May 2011 01:11:22 -0000 Message-ID: <4DCDD6B5.6010803@net-zen.net> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:11:17 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alper Yegin References: <20110102091501.7268.52246.idtracker@localhost> <004b01cc10d2$a5a9ffa0$f0fdfee0$@yegin@yegin.org> <85A262FF-93ED-41A4-A278-40DBBCE0B0BA@gmail.com> <00bc01cc110e$fd2f94b0$f78ebe10$@yegin@yegin.org> In-Reply-To: <00bc01cc110e$fd2f94b0$f78ebe10$@yegin@yegin.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040702020708010505030903" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Vendor-Id vs Supported-Vendor-Id X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 01:11:25 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040702020708010505030903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/13/2011 8:42 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: >>> What is "a vendor other than the device vendor"? Is it equivalent to >> the >>> Forum in the aforementioned example? >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Say, a vendor X implemented a Diameter agent and some application in >> it. The vendor X also saw it beneficial to support vendor specific >> extensions from vendors A, B and C for that application. During CER/CEA >> exchange A, B and C would be put into Supported-Vendor-Id AVPs. The X >> would be put into Vendor-Id AVP. > > > If vendor X implemented both its own extensions and also extensions from > SDO/Forum Foo, can we say X is carried in Vendor-Id and Foo is carried in > Supported-Vendor-Id? Is that the intent of the spec? The Vendor-Id AVP identifies the source of the implementation; for example, a Cisco NAS would identify itself as such by means of this AVP. One could assume that a Cisco NAS would support at least a subset of the Cisco vendor-specific extensions, but it would be safer IMHO for it to include a Supported-Vendor-Id AVP containing the Cisco SMI code as well. There can be multiple instances of the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP in a message, but only a single instance of the Vendor-Id AVP. I'm most interested in what is unclear about the spec, though. Here is the section of RFC 3588 defining the Vendor-Id AVP: 5.3.3. Vendor-Id AVP The Vendor-Id AVP (AVP Code 266) is of type Unsigned32 and contains the IANA "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" [ASSIGNNO] value assigned to the vendor of the Diameter application. In combination with the Supported-Vendor-Id AVP (Section 5.3.6), this MAY be used in order to know which vendor specific attributes may be sent to the peer. It is also envisioned that the combination of the Vendor-Id, Product-Name (Section 5.3.7) and the Firmware-Revision (Section 5.3.4) AVPs MAY provide very useful debugging information. A Vendor-Id value of zero in the CER or CEA messages is reserved and indicates that this field is ignored. Obviously there's something wrong with this text; what is it? ... --------------040702020708010505030903 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------040702020708010505030903-- From dromasca@avaya.com Mon May 16 07:14:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E6BE06AD for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 07:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n1PkE8YSwCNn for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 07:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB52E0699 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 07:14:30 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao4HABww0U2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACYDY4Jd6d4g1kCmzWGGQSUXYor X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,374,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="280157614" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2011 10:14:30 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,374,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="652429848" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2011 10:14:29 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 16:14:28 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 Thread-Index: AcwT05Fma3l2DkipR/GWj6GKnfHFjg== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:14:31 -0000 Hi,=20 I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09. The document is in good shape, I have a small number of issues which seem simple to respond and fix if necessary, so I suggest that you do it before submitting the document to IETF Last Call.=20 Technical Issues are marked T and Editorial issues are marked E.=20 Technical: T1: Is there any special reason for skipping decimal value (4) in the enumeration in Section 3.1.1? If there is none I suggest to move RSA-KEM from (5) to (4).=20 T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will be in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per [RFC5226] for AVP types? For example is it recommended to assign AVPs only for cryptographic key material defined in IETF standard track documents?=20 T3. In section 5.2:=20 'once values have been assigned, they MUST NOT be deleted, replaced, modified or deprecated.'=20 It is not clear why we do not allow for values to be deprecated. Assuming that a cryptographic delivery method was deprecated, why would not marking the AVP as deprecated be allowed, as long as the value cannot be deleted, replaced or modified?=20 Editorial:=20 E1: Why is RSA-KEM not expanded and explained in Section 2.2. - Technical Terms and Acronyms? Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 19 12:08:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A911E081E; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:08:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVOr06Wag7fv; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC826E06BE; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:08:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.54 Message-ID: <20110519190811.23688.8420.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:08:11 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:08:12 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for = IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction Author(s) : Violeta Cakulev Avi Lior Filename : draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2011-05-19 The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security associations (SAs) between the respective parties. IKEv2 supports several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets. With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been specified. However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP and did not include support for pre-shared secret based authentication available with IKEv2. This document specifies IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.t= xt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-06.txt From violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com Thu May 19 12:12:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E345E0759 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDNsnyOcaa8F for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7658CE06B3 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p4JJCDJn009207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p4JJC577010115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:13 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.124]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:12 -0500 From: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "dime@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:11 -0500 Thread-Topic: AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Thread-Index: AcwLM6OwJj1j0g4PTJOYEHBonlWjAgLJK/Fw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Subject: Re: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:12:19 -0000 Dan, Thanks for the comments please see inline [VC]. Thanks, -Violeta -----Original Message----- From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rom= ascanu, Dan (Dan) Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:50 AM To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Hi, Please find below the AD review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt. While the document is in pretty = good shape, there are a few key technical and editorial issues that need to= be addressed before we can send the document to IETF Last Call. See below. Technical requirements are marked Tx and Editorial requirements = are marked Ex. Thanks and Regards, Dan T1. In the Abstract section I find the following: > This document therefore extends the functionality offered by [RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used. Would not this imply that the document should have the note 'Updates RFC 5779 - when approved' in the header? [VC] This is a good point. This wording indeed implies that the document is= actually updating RFC 5778 and that is not the case. We changed the wordin= g in v6. T2. In any case it seems to me that RFC 5778 should rather be a Normative R= eference rather than an Informative reference. [VC] I looked into this carefully a while back. This document is specifying= new Diameter application, AVPs etc. in other words nothing from RFC 5778 i= s being reused. I don't think that RFC 5778 must be read to understand or i= mplement the technology in this document. Nevertheless, for the sake of com= pleteness I think it is worth referencing it. E1. [RFC5778] is the correct label for the reference and not [RFC 5778] E2. In Section 1 s/IKEv2 protocol allows/The IKEv2 protocol allows/ E3. Expand HAAA at the first occurrence which is in Section 1 E4. Section 4.2 - s/IKE_SA correspond/IKE_SA corresponds/ E5. Section 9 IANA Considerations needs a serious re-write. The first parag= raph should not use verbs at past time as we are describing here codes and = values defined in this specification. All the other sections need to be exp= licit about what allocations are required from IANA. For example it would b= e good to use the format 'IANA is required to allocate the following AVP Co= des: IKEv2 Nonces - TBD5, Ni - TBD5, etc.' [VC] v6 addresses all of the above. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dromasca@avaya.com Fri May 20 02:46:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CDAE074E for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 02:46:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqPZH7d9YwCL for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 02:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A53CE070C for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 02:45:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhABAHY31k3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACXXo49d6k+AptPhhkElF2KKw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,241,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="189270640" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2011 05:45:58 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,241,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="624296507" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2011 05:45:57 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:45:55 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt Thread-Index: AcwLM6OwJj1j0g4PTJOYEHBonlWjAgLJK/FwAB57LgA= References: From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" , Subject: Re: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:46:00 -0000 Hi,=20 Thank you for the revised version. I am sending the document to IETF Last Call. I am fine with the changes you made to the document. One issue was introduced by this version - mentioning references is not recommended in Abstract sections. You may want to take out the [RFC5778] reference from the Abstract and leave the one in the Introduction. You can do this after the last call. Thanks and Regards, Dan=20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)=20 > [mailto:violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:12 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); dime@ietf.org > Subject: RE: AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt >=20 >=20 > Dan, > Thanks for the comments please see inline [VC]. >=20 > Thanks, > -Violeta >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:50 AM > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt >=20 >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Please find below the AD review of > draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt. While the document=20 > is in pretty good shape, there are a few key technical and=20 > editorial issues that need to be addressed before we can send=20 > the document to IETF Last Call. >=20 > See below. Technical requirements are marked Tx and Editorial=20 > requirements are marked Ex. >=20 > Thanks and Regards, >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 > T1. In the Abstract section I find the following: >=20 > > This document therefore extends > the functionality offered by [RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based > authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used. >=20 > Would not this imply that the document should have the note=20 > 'Updates RFC > 5779 - when approved' in the header? > [VC] This is a good point. This wording indeed implies that=20 > the document is actually updating RFC 5778 and that is not=20 > the case. We changed the wording in v6. >=20 > T2. In any case it seems to me that RFC 5778 should rather be=20 > a Normative Reference rather than an Informative reference. > [VC] I looked into this carefully a while back. This document=20 > is specifying new Diameter application, AVPs etc. in other=20 > words nothing from RFC 5778 is being reused. I don't think=20 > that RFC 5778 must be read to understand or implement the=20 > technology in this document. Nevertheless, for the sake of=20 > completeness I think it is worth referencing it. >=20 >=20 >=20 > E1. [RFC5778] is the correct label for the reference and not=20 > [RFC 5778] >=20 > E2. In Section 1 s/IKEv2 protocol allows/The IKEv2 protocol allows/ >=20 > E3. Expand HAAA at the first occurrence which is in Section 1 >=20 > E4. Section 4.2 - s/IKE_SA correspond/IKE_SA corresponds/ >=20 > E5. Section 9 IANA Considerations needs a serious re-write.=20 > The first paragraph should not use verbs at past time as we=20 > are describing here codes and values defined in this=20 > specification. All the other sections need to be explicit=20 > about what allocations are required from IANA. For example it=20 > would be good to use the format 'IANA is required to allocate=20 > the following AVP Codes: IKEv2 Nonces - TBD5, Ni - TBD5, etc.' > [VC] v6 addresses all of the above. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >=20 From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri May 20 06:50:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6609E07AE; Fri, 20 May 2011 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.533 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z+cviArtYjL1; Fri, 20 May 2011 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685A0E075A; Fri, 20 May 2011 06:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.54 Message-ID: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:50:22 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Last Call: (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:50:23 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security associations (SAs) between the respective parties. IKEv2 supports several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets. With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been specified. However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP and did not include support for pre-shared secret based authentication available with IKEv2. This document specifies IKEv2 server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon May 23 07:13:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBB4E07A5; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lql2BhDkFLOT; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A66E07A6; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.54 Message-ID: <20110523141319.5833.50818.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 07:13:19 -0700 Cc: dime mailing list , dime chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Dime] Protocol Action: 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:13:20 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update/ Technical Summary This document defines a new Diameter application and associated command codes. The Capabilities Update application is intended to allow the dynamic update of certain Diameter peer capabilities while the peer-to-peer connection is in the open state. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality This document has been reviewed and commented by key people in the Dime WG. Personnel Lionel Morand is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director. From dromasca@avaya.com Mon May 23 07:29:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A0FE07C2 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:29:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.283 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.283 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bStRVaKOqjRk for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2C3DE07BF for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 07:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkBAM5q2k2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACXZkCNf3ekEYNZAppUhhkElF2KKw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,244,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="281318298" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2011 10:29:38 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,256,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="655187708" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 May 2011 10:29:37 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:29:35 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Protocol Action: 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' toProposed Standard (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) Thread-Index: AcwZU7AybMkG58Q+QXWUXAk5ITFTFQAAe6EA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: Protocol Action: 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' toProposed Standard (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:29:39 -0000 =20 Hi,=20 Thanks and congratulations to the editors, chairs and all the WG for having reached this milestone.=20 Regards, Dan=20 -----Original Message----- From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:13 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: dime mailing list; dime chair; RFC Editor Subject: Protocol Action: 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' toProposed Standard (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'The Diameter Capabilities Update Application' (draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-07.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update/ Technical Summary This document defines a new Diameter application and associated command codes. The Capabilities Update application is intended to allow the dynamic update of certain Diameter peer capabilities while the peer-to-peer connection is in the open state. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality This document has been reviewed and commented by key people in the Dime WG.=20 Personnel Lionel Morand is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From yaronf.ietf@gmail.com Sun May 22 11:46:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31E2E06B5; Sun, 22 May 2011 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xdao4rCIrjD9; Sun, 22 May 2011 11:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EC8E0696; Sun, 22 May 2011 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwk4 with SMTP id 4so886981wwk.1 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 11:46:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=t/5ue5V1yzE8DUrO+EUJQRSrP5jWsWRzWmTQ02ZBFlg=; b=dPlykchcZjNhafc4TFqu/xmf877D5qprxs5KrhJUm7nkvU9H1G/Ser9vQy5j+iRLOE Q75wCYNRmZ6VoMSx4CmQmQWVkDeHOMvmFqaNII9VPrtZRqxSY4J0q3yiQYSb9RLdSjdz ci43xQ5JONa4Fg5blnDg1ve9BrJ3ZewHGVUw0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wQSZJk2Qbov2xbtQPBmUozWePawf1siZMIs3H5VnCh/j4JlyAzNaTDrfNE1PeYBBdQ TtX6kyMuZ2bm++SMXKSSvbsBOqFwx4f5JDBocRvhkI818zWnIsnjt4ZZnlKQ/2C8FaEl 68NOJTyvLn+oYFKALRBwWM7VBgOAHBIqtST9A= Received: by 10.227.197.201 with SMTP id el9mr1492325wbb.22.1306089505722; Sun, 22 May 2011 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.4] ([109.66.41.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w25sm3602096wbd.5.2011.05.22.11.38.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 22 May 2011 11:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DD9581C.3070900@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 21:38:20 +0300 From: Yaron Sheffer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf@ietf.org References: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20110520135022.1622.22713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:32:01 -0700 Cc: IPsecme WG , draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter@tools.ietf.og, dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Last Call: (Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server to Diameter Server Interaction) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 18:46:07 -0000 Hi, Having read this document only now, I think there's a number of serious issues with it. This document was sent to the ipsec mailing list a while ago but unfortunately got no review. Summary: 1. I think the wrong architectural choice was made, in preferring PSK over EAP authentication. 2. There is not enough detail in the document to result in interoperable implementations. Detailed comments: • The appropriate ref for IKEv2 is RFC 5996. This was actually noted in the shepherd review back in March. • The document notes that EAP is one of the authentication modes supported by IKEv2. EAP is designed for interaction with backend AAA servers, and is quite capable of performing shared-secret authentication, using a variety of EAP methods (and see also RFC 5998, on IKEv2 mutual auth with EAP). Yet the document does not explain why EAP is not used, instead preferring the IKE PSK authentication method. • 4.1: how can the incoming SPI be used to identify the peer? • Packing additional semantics into SPI may conflict with elements of the IPsec architecture (see for example Sec. 9.3 of draft-ietf-ipsecme-failure-detection-08). • 4.1, 2nd paragraph: generation of the PSK is central to this solution, so it cannot be "outside the scope" of the document. There is no way to interoperate otherwise. • Moreover, if a single client is expected to sometimes use EAP and sometimes PSK, there must be a way to notify it which one to use. • How does key-lifetime relate to the lifetime of the IKE SA? • Sec. 10 refers to the PSK as a "session key" which is incorrect, as PSK is only used for authentication and does not encrypt anything. • The same paragraph is very vague about the security properties of PSK. RFC 5996 takes PSK much more seriously, e.g. "When using pre-shared keys, a critical consideration is how to assure the randomness of these secrets." Again, I believe the document should specify how the PSK is derived. • Why "if nonces are included" where the document says that they *must* be included (in the AVP occurrence table). Thanks, Yaron On 05/20/2011 04:50 PM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and > Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: > - 'Diameter IKEv2 PSK: Pre-Shared Secret-based Support for IKEv2 Server > to Diameter Server Interaction' > as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-03. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) is a component > of the IPsec architecture and is used to perform mutual > authentication as well as to establish and to maintain IPsec security > associations (SAs) between the respective parties. IKEv2 supports > several different authentication mechanisms, such as the Extensible > Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates, and pre-shared secrets. > > With [RFC5778] the Diameter interworking for Mobile IPv6 between the > Home Agent, as a Diameter client, and the Diameter server has been > specified. However, that specification focused on the usage of EAP > and did not include support for pre-shared secret based > authentication available with IKEv2. This document specifies IKEv2 > server, as a Diameter client, to the Diameter server communication > for IKEv2 with pre-shared secret based authentication. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From gwz@net-zen.net Tue May 24 07:35:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0B9E074C for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:35:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y5jOpqdGBmMp for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 842FFE06AF for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30229 invoked from network); 24 May 2011 14:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.74.224) by p3plsmtpa06-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (173.201.192.110) with ESMTP; 24 May 2011 14:28:57 -0000 Message-ID: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:28:52 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------080107020508070000090906" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:35:39 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080107020508070000090906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/16/2011 9:14 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have reviewed draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09. The document is in > good shape, I have a small number of issues which seem simple to respond > and fix if necessary, so I suggest that you do it before submitting the > document to IETF Last Call. > > Technical Issues are marked T and Editorial issues are marked E. > > Technical: > > T1: Is there any special reason for skipping decimal value (4) in the > enumeration in Section 3.1.1? If there is none I suggest to move RSA-KEM > from (5) to (4). OK. > > T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will be in > charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per [RFC5226] > for AVP types? Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP? No such recommendations would come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First Come, First Served" (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03.txt) on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & deploy e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-). IIRC, one of the dime Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have some suggestions. ... > T3. In section 5.2: > > 'once values have been assigned, they MUST NOT be deleted, replaced, > modified or deprecated.' > > It is not clear why we do not allow for values to be deprecated. > Assuming that a cryptographic delivery method was deprecated, why would > not marking the AVP as deprecated be allowed, as long as the value > cannot be deleted, replaced or modified? Sure, why not. > > Editorial: > > E1: Why is RSA-KEM not expanded and explained in Section 2.2. - > Technical Terms and Acronyms? Would you like the whole thing expanded or just KEM? ... --------------080107020508070000090906 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------080107020508070000090906-- From dromasca@avaya.com Wed May 25 04:34:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C1AE0680 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:34:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCytKAY9xtjC for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106EAE0618 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 04:34:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACLn3E2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACmKXiqOgKbPoYcBJUCijU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,266,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="248090574" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 07:34:36 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,266,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="655975253" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 25 May 2011 07:34:35 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:34:33 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 Thread-Index: AcwaHu74ByTnJY9gSASpINa7ofyNFwArzemw References: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Glen Zorn" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:34:39 -0000 Hi Glen,=20 Thank you for your answer.=20 Please see in-line answers. I deleted the issues that were fully agreed. Regards, Dan=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net] >=20 ... > > > > T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will be > > in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per > > [RFC5226] for AVP types? >=20 > Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP? No such recommendations would > come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First Come, > First Served" > (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran- > 03.txt) > on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & deploy > e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-). IIRC, one of the dime > Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have some > suggestions. >=20 > ... [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP values should be specified.=20 ... > > > > E1: Why is RSA-KEM not expanded and explained in Section 2.2. - > > Technical Terms and Acronyms? >=20 > Would you like the whole thing expanded or just KEM? [[DR]] RFC 5990 explains KEM (in the Abstract actually). This would be probably sufficient, although I would bet that even in the security community not everybody knows the names beyond R, S and A.=20 ... >=20 > ... From gwz@net-zen.net Wed May 25 22:11:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D980EE06DE for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:11:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.662 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id to0lRzNZ9BHl for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B756E06C1 for ; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13908 invoked from network); 26 May 2011 05:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.33.179) by p3plsmtpa01-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.82) with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 05:11:39 -0000 Message-ID: <4DDDE107.9090501@net-zen.net> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:11:35 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040805060300020203090900" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 05:11:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040805060300020203090900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/25/2011 6:34 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: ... >>> T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will > be >>> in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per >>> [RFC5226] for AVP types? >> >> Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP? No such recommendations > would >> come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First Come, >> First Served" >> (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran- >> 03.txt) >> on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & deploy >> e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-). IIRC, one of the dime >> Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have some >> suggestions. >> >> ... > > [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is > "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP > values should be specified. I would prefer to change the policy to "Specification Required" because this seems to be all that is really necessary for interoperability. > > ... > >>> >>> E1: Why is RSA-KEM not expanded and explained in Section 2.2. - >>> Technical Terms and Acronyms? >> >> Would you like the whole thing expanded or just KEM? > [[DR]] RFC 5990 explains KEM (in the Abstract actually). This would be > probably sufficient, although I would bet that even in the security > community not everybody knows the names beyond R, S and A. OK, added definitions of both "RSA" and "RSA-KEM". ... --------------040805060300020203090900 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------040805060300020203090900-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed May 25 22:18:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8C8E0738; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:18:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aeNwCzSa+OHu; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0C1E06EF; Wed, 25 May 2011 22:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110526051824.21696.83165.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:18:24 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-10.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 05:18:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions W= orking Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Tra= nsport Author(s) : Glen Zorn Qin Wu Violeta Cakulev Filename : draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-10.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2011-05-25 Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications require the transport of cryptographic keying material. This document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-10.txt From dromasca@avaya.com Thu May 26 00:06:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7B0E0763 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JLbAz7-vq+u for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB0CE0670 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhEBAGH53U3GmAcF/2dsb2JhbACXdY5GeKspApsUhhwElQqKOA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,272,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="281850989" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 03:06:18 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,272,1304308800"; d="scan'208";a="626314972" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.11]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 03:06:17 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:06:14 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4DDDE107.9090501@net-zen.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 Thread-Index: AcwbY267w4G5bIOsTE6VT6gREvZZdAAD7Oww References: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> <4DDDE107.9090501@net-zen.net> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Glen Zorn" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:06:21 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:gwz@net-zen.net] > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:12 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 >=20 > On 5/25/2011 6:34 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >=20 > ... >=20 > >>> T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will > > be > >>> in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per > >>> [RFC5226] for AVP types? > >> > >> Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP? No such recommendations > > would > >> come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First Come, > >> First Served" > >> (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran- > >> 03.txt) > >> on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & > >> deploy e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-). IIRC, one of > the > >> dime Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have > >> some suggestions. > >> > >> ... > > > > [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is > > "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP > > values should be specified. >=20 > I would prefer to change the policy to "Specification Required" because > this seems to be all that is really necessary for interoperability. >=20 [[DR]] The WG needs to agree on this change. I would like to hear the opinions of other WG participants and of the chair(s).=20 Dan=20 From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Thu May 26 00:25:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66697E0670 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4MZGilxBzEft for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D1FE0688 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so240328eye.31 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=Qxu3Lo5/tMfCNXt5F+Vcn6g3uW0UmI1xfAqBwjxj6lE=; b=IkFdqQOvTVDh9iIjAXXTfYvwXcplTcdJewmYtCtViDQ1QXGbply0RA64vRG60O31Cm PdFrcyY3rlNdADaO8qnHHgZ80P269UAV9jk7charHzDqBh1Wm61X9V0slRdOhUPSh+yu UMcUW18EOM4uCZYUFXElCFy0iykmpt4Ns+n/E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=eGcWLIXtQYmjO1Tb9FZhMkeTEuk7sfOyJDsU+Qw8g7FBDY+Eg6Yhqrtcjxk3ImcnNk XncTzUVfOHFGZzdTEylF3IbyTyfsa2wK9KskPS4iJoVMrb9FtujJXV7UXIAOzScvVhV4 0zl0UJ+WjnzSqAAkaJvJH/ICAxIpqm4Erv/ZI= Received: by 10.213.14.209 with SMTP id h17mr212083eba.23.1306394742146; Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a83-245-209-233.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a83-245-209-233.elisa-laajakaista.fi [83.245.209.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b1sm312803eeg.19.2011.05.26.00.25.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 May 2011 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 10:25:38 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2DC0C1CD-DDE3-47B7-8D52-BA9A717B59C8@gmail.com> References: <4DDBC0A4.4000802@net-zen.net> <4DDDE107.9090501@net-zen.net> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Glen Zorn X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:25:45 -0000 Hi, On May 26, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >>>>> in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per >>>>> [RFC5226] for AVP types? >>>>=20 >>>> Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP? No such recommendations >>> would >>>> come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First > Come, >>>> First Served" >>>> (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran- >>>> 03.txt) >>>> on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & >>>> deploy e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-). IIRC, one of >> the >>>> dime Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have >>>> some suggestions. >>>>=20 >>>> ... >>>=20 >>> [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is >>> "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP >>> values should be specified. >>=20 >> I would prefer to change the policy to "Specification Required" > because >> this seems to be all that is really necessary for interoperability. >>=20 >=20 > [[DR]] The WG needs to agree on this change. I would like to hear the > opinions of other WG participants and of the chair(s).=20 =46rom my experience "specification required" policy is a good choice, = especially if the specification is mostly intended to be used in other = SDOs outside IETF. If e.g. some SDO has a reason to use some specific = key type in their system, which might be really dud from IETF point of = view, what we are to block such use? At least proper documentation is = out there anyway. - Jouni (as the WG participant and the "other" chair) >=20 > Dan=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From kmigoe@nsa.gov Fri May 27 06:23:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2330BE06EC for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:23:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S+g-QIORTqvA for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov [63.239.65.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25035E06CE for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 06:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MSCS-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea01.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p4RDMxma006105 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 13:22:59 GMT Received: from MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov ([10.215.228.137]) by MSCS-GH1-UEA03.corp.nsa.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 May 2011 09:22:58 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC1C71.323DC65E" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 09:22:58 -0400 Message-ID: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B18@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition? Thread-Index: AcwccTHLt99hrOutSQGzxiFBOV12cw== From: "Igoe, Kevin M." To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2011 13:22:58.0920 (UTC) FILETIME=[32640680:01CC1C71] Subject: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:23:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC1C71.323DC65E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 we find the following pair of definitions: =20 =20 Diameter Peer =20 If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter Node. =20 =20 Transport Connection =20 A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a Peer-to- Peer Connection. =20 =20 This strikes me as being a wee bit circular. "Diameter Peer" is defined=20 in terms of "transport connection" and "Transport Connection" is defined in terms of Diameter peer.=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Kevin M. Igoe | "Everyone is entitled to their own kmigoe@nsa.gov | opinions, but not to their own facts." | - Daniel Patrick Moynihan - ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC1C71.323DC65E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In = draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 we find the following pair = of

definitions:

 

 

   = Diameter Peer

 

      If a Diameter Node shares a direct = transport connection with

      another Diameter Node, it is a = Diameter Peer to that Diameter

      Node.

 

 

  Transport =
Connection
 
  &=
nbsp;   A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection =
existing
      directly =
between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a =
Peer-to-
      Peer =
Connection.
 

 

This strikes me as = being a wee bit circular. “Diameter Peer” is defined =

in terms of = “transport connection” and “Transport = Connection” is defined

in terms of Diameter peer.

 

 

 

 

Kevin M. = Igoe   |   "Everyone is entitled to their = own
kmigoe@nsa.gov=   |    opinions, but not to their own = facts."
         &nb= sp;      |     &nb= sp; - Daniel Patrick Moynihan -

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC1C71.323DC65E-- From gwz@net-zen.net Fri May 27 19:03:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A714BE06EA for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 19:03:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.658 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m6mu+jY8mr9t for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 19:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 482CEE0680 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 19:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 476 invoked from network); 28 May 2011 02:03:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.202.195) by smtpauth11.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.33) with ESMTP; 28 May 2011 02:03:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4DE057D8.6060107@net-zen.net> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 09:03:04 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Igoe, Kevin M." References: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B18@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov> In-Reply-To: <80F9AC969A517A4DA0DE3E7CF74CC1BB425B18@MSIS-GH1-UEA06.corp.nsa.gov> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040202090702010209070000" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26: circular definition? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 02:03:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040202090702010209070000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 5/27/2011 8:22 PM, Igoe, Kevin M. wrote: > In draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 we find the following pair of > > definitions: > > Diameter Peer > > If a Diameter Node shares a direct transport connection with > > another Diameter Node, it is a Diameter Peer to that Diameter > > Node. > > > Transport Connection > > A transport connection is a TCP or SCTP connection existing > > directly between two Diameter peers, otherwise known as a Peer-to- > > Peer Connection. > > > This strikes me as being a wee bit circular. “Diameter Peer” is defined > > in terms of “transport connection” and “Transport Connection” is defined > > in terms of Diameter peer. Could be better, I guess. Any suggestions? ... --------------040202090702010209070000 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------040202090702010209070000-- From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Sun May 29 12:56:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042B1E0753 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YyVEW-Px60wd for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D6BE0750 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1468787eye.31 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=tvgqGxTm8izAg7LVGmnqZh6LKXdMwdzezQxni4zUc2Y=; b=BpIguVNLuNyweu0VC4nXjfFeFZrFHVRsvjmta8TDglou8QhDguYW/KE43dATxKkOYs 54h/roj/L127HLwhatgKGzQe1JB9A3T8rbRB8Albqb1lhpiXtEwJsBLR7Jv7e8cE4g8B 4FZmwGoMdCIngfyFEMfR0EDQj5NB3buek2B/g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=OW5fWYcYl9pyIHXZrpjnS62iChLUIGcqCuqtQ2swVAkvIpM4BobZ0FR0FKVUg1SdQP o5mvRv4TNUlFMRBkcwnuulBwRh8X9q61kShczTjiETJNc+tvynTpng9BOKhsOk41JLG+ g24/CEKd9p3A4r54L1vjc+2w5XMcejB+lC+gc= Received: by 10.213.107.139 with SMTP id b11mr1542296ebp.93.1306699004407; Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-114-172-19.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-172-19.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.172.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s11sm621029eef.15.2011.05.29.12.56.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 29 May 2011 12:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: jouni korhonen Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 22:56:41 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3B8D8334-91DD-4C59-851F-9020BEE008F6@gmail.com> References: <20110529183338.32432.97927@ietfa.amsl.com> To: dime@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Dime] WGLC continues for draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 19:56:48 -0000 Folks, The first WGLC ended for this I-D 26th May. There was no reviews, = comments, nothing. Thus we continue the WGLC for two more weeks.=20 - Jouni Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF Secretariat > Date: May 29, 2011 9:33:38 PM GMT+03:00 > To: Jouni Korhonen , Wenson Wu = , Glen Zorn , Lionel Morand = , Marco Liebsch = , Jouni Korhonen > Subject: Annotation tags have changed for draft = draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr >=20 > The annotation tags of document draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-lr have been = updated. See more information below. >=20 > Annotation tags set: Other - see Comment Log > Annotation tags reset:=20 > Date of the change:=20 > Author of the change: Jouni Korhonen >=20 > Comment: > No comments or reviews received. The Document stays in WGLC for = another two weeks. From gwz@net-zen.net Sun May 29 23:42:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7F4E06EC for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:42:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcmdsamymEdY for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7224AE068B for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17308 invoked from network); 30 May 2011 06:13:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.93.182) by smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.29) with ESMTP; 30 May 2011 06:13:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4DE33C67.5070509@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 13:42:47 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Mark Jones References: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050809050405050002030409" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #17 on RFC4005bis X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 06:42:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050809050405050002030409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/30/2011 4:58 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > The ticket says: > >> Section 4.1.1. QoSFilterRule >> >> "The QosFilterRule? format is derived from the OctetString? AVP Base > > Format. It uses the ASCII charset." >> >> Mark Jones> RFC5777 defines Diameter AVPs that represent QoS and IP >> filter rules and even includes a NASREQ example. I'd like to see the > > ASCII-based variants deprecated but even if that idea doesn't fly, > > This is up to the WG, I think. And up to the chairs to ask the question... > >> I think it would be useful to mention RFC5777 here as offering an >> alternative. > > This is fine with me; care to contribute some text? RSVP. > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --------------050809050405050002030409 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------050809050405050002030409-- From gwz@net-zen.net Sun May 29 23:43:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE243E0773 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.647 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gs+DPISbcu3z for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 77E1FE0771 for ; Sun, 29 May 2011 23:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30709 invoked from network); 30 May 2011 06:43:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.93.182) by smtpauth22.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.44) with ESMTP; 30 May 2011 06:43:55 -0000 Message-ID: <4DE33CA7.1030604@net-zen.net> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 13:43:51 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030109070105050207090008" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Fwd: Issue #18 re: RFC 4005 bis X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 06:43:58 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030109070105050207090008 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RSVP! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Dime] Issue #18 re: RFC 4005 bis Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:21:59 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen To: dime@ietf.org The ticket says: > Section 4.2.5. Called-Station-Id AVP > > "It SHOULD only be present in authentication and/or authorization > requests." > > Mark Jones> Why is this recommendation here? I have no idea, either. This seems like a question the Chairs should pose the WG, since the text in question was inherited from RFC 4005. > This AVP is commonly > used in RADIUS accounting requests. Same comment for Calling- > Station-Id AVP in Section 4.2.6. --------------030109070105050207090008 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --------------030109070105050207090008 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------030109070105050207090008-- From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Mon May 30 14:45:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2962CE0731 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwwbjKYC2OW3 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A19AE071C for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1823018eye.31 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=LnUS0i3uk13e8AExDm5+FshmFVK8Gsv0ejvb8IZlUtg=; b=NtAi0jMWMpLTykDcyWJggARNhb18Xq2OoEE5hePCduPi3V79NUV4+IaBdJR7Wmyf4K heLYvYzpAQ8KNTlUrcD6vg9KNSrop20pv/bU4FZuyxvvez36k+csFiRTUW4o1bxM9jUz /ld7FEQQCWMMK1nX4sriq9lyP2vc/NCWSZIxw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=IrqU3Q/Wgyc0vepp+m1s3ZtYIxJjQtWP7XzMbRHXfT7UihgimOzcKumKG9RS61zorz rX0FIAHJMHgUAZ0kynNIqDy6NrkCzZE/eRhv/t0frq/7ngO5HHlu+GwoeP9hIb8i3dLM 7CRCRj5r4sdtjyqvUw7veOTB9SmklM4pQ23iE= Received: by 10.213.13.79 with SMTP id b15mr1006176eba.95.1306791912106; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a88-114-66-120.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-66-120.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.66.120]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s48sm3453769eeb.2.2011.05.30.14.45.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 May 2011 14:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 00:45:04 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> To: dime@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #17 on RFC4005bis X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 21:45:14 -0000 Hello, On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > The ticket says: >=20 >> Section 4.1.1. QoSFilterRule >>=20 >> "The QosFilterRule? format is derived from the OctetString? AVP Base = > > Format. It uses the ASCII charset." >>=20 >> Mark Jones> RFC5777 defines Diameter AVPs that represent QoS and IP >> filter rules and even includes a NASREQ example. I'd like to see the = > > ASCII-based variants deprecated but even if that idea doesn't fly, >=20 > This is up to the WG, I think. It seems there has been overwhelming amount of opinions here.. ;) = Seriously, what does the WG think if we go forward and use RFC5777 QoS = material instead of RFC4005 old ipfw based ascii rules? One more thing = to remind is that RFC3588bis still uses old ascii based filter rules.. = and I do not see that changing for the next revision. >=20 >> I think it would be useful to mention RFC5777 here as offering an >> alternative. >=20 > This is fine with me; care to contribute some text? Just add a sentence saying there is also a binary format for filter = rules available and point to RFC5777 ? - Jouni (as a co-chair) > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From gwz@net-zen.net Mon May 30 23:53:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2130AE07B4 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hO2qkjVJs8gD for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AF90E0798 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:53:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2650 invoked from network); 31 May 2011 06:53:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (124.120.176.220) by smtpauth20.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.36) with ESMTP; 31 May 2011 06:53:08 -0000 Message-ID: <4DE4904E.2080907@net-zen.net> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:53:02 +0700 From: Glen Zorn Organization: Network Zen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jouni korhonen References: <4DBBDD2F.3070705@net-zen.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020309000807000109020908" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue #17 on RFC4005bis X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 06:53:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020309000807000109020908 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/31/2011 4:45 AM, jouni korhonen wrote: > Hello, > > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Glen Zorn wrote: > >> The ticket says: >> >>> Section 4.1.1. QoSFilterRule >>> >>> "The QosFilterRule? format is derived from the OctetString? AVP Base > >> Format. It uses the ASCII charset." >>> >>> Mark Jones> RFC5777 defines Diameter AVPs that represent QoS and IP >>> filter rules and even includes a NASREQ example. I'd like to see the > >> ASCII-based variants deprecated but even if that idea doesn't fly, >> >> This is up to the WG, I think. > > It seems there has been overwhelming amount of opinions here.. ;) Seriously, what does the WG think if we go forward and use RFC5777 QoS material instead of RFC4005 old ipfw based ascii rules? One more thing to remind is that RFC3588bis still uses old ascii based filter rules.. and I do not see that changing for the next revision. > For the record, I favor Mark's idea; I've never liked the QosFilterRule format. ... --------------020309000807000109020908 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="gwz.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="gwz.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Glen Zorn n:Zorn;Glen org:Network Zen adr:;;;Seattle;WA;;USA email;internet:gwz@net-zen.net tel;cell:+66 87 040 4617 note:PGP Key Fingerprint: DAD3 F5D3 ACE6 4195 9C5C 2EE1 6E17 B5F6 5953 B45F version:2.1 end:vcard --------------020309000807000109020908-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue May 31 06:08:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FF0E082B; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-UGt91275FG; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455D6E07BA; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110531130823.29146.44475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 06:08:23 -0700 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Last Call: (Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:08:24 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document: - 'Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications require the transport of cryptographic keying material. This document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.