Subject: [AAA-WG]: AAA WG Interim meeting dates

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:44:16 -0800

As mentioned at IETF 50, the AAA WG will be scheduling a
two-day interim meeting in order to make further progress
on completing the DIAMETER specification. 

In order to meet the 30 day notice requirements, the earliest
dates would be Monday, April 30 and Tuesday, May 1, 2001. 
Suggested meeting location is the SF Bay Area. 

An alternative set of suggested dates is May 21-22, 2001. 

Any opinions on the best time for the meeting?

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:04:58 -0800

> An alternative set of suggested dates is May 21-22, 2001. 

I would _much_ prefer May 21-22.

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 06:54:00 -0800 (PST)

> I would _much_ prefer May 21-22.

As much as I'd like to accomodate Glen, my preference would be for the April
date, since we need these specs in WG last call ASAP. Three weeks is a LONG
time.

PatC

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:21:04 -0800

> date, since we need these specs in WG last call ASAP. Three weeks

Indeed.  In fact, it might just be long enough to complete the work the way
it's supposed to be done: on the list.

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:28:32 -0800 (PST)

> it's supposed to be done: on the list.

Just to be clear, both weeks do work for me. My preference was simply because
I was concerned that we could possibly miss 3GPP2 deadlines by pushing it out
too far. However, now that I think of it, if the document is sent out the week
after the interim meeting, and automatically enters WG last call, we can
probably be done with the specs by the end of June. So the later date *could*
work, if the WG is willing to be a little more aggresive, and I am willing to
do my share...

As for working on the list, I agree that's the preferred way, but we all know
how much work really gets done face to face :(

PatC

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:36:29 -0800

> it's supposed to be done: on the list.

to clarify/quibble: your wording might be misinterpreted to imply that
interim meetings are not part of the "supposed to be done" ietf process,
when in fact they are.

randy, wearing AD hat

---

From: "John Alayari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:04:19 -0800

On the per-hop Error signaling in section 9.0, the Device Status Ind(DSI)
message is used for reporting an error downstream next hop. I have 2
questions:

Question 1) Could error reporting be handled within response to a message
such as accounting-answer? Why are we using a new -IND message (DSI)
message? and those message are supposed to unsolicited.

Question 2)By looking at DSI-Event AVP (section 9.1.1) and Result-code AVP
(section 10.2), I see lots of similarities between the two AVPs. The
DSI-event AVP can easily and with minimum effort can be included into
Result-code AVP. Is there any reason why we did not do this? One advantage
would be less code size.

John Alayari.

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:10:02 -0800 (PST)

> message? and those message are supposed to unsolicited.

Let's assume that a proxy is out there that doesn't know about extension 'X',
but it needs to report an error. How would the proxy know to convert X-request
to X-answer (specifically what the command code should be). So a generic
return code needs to be supported.

> Result-code AVP. Is there any reason why we did not do this? One advantage

Although there seems to be some overlap, there are significant differences in
how the events/errors are handled. It doesn't seem that significant to have
two separate switch statements, which they probably would be given the type of
error anyways (one is in the proxying code, and the other at the "extension"
level).

PatC

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:37:47 -0800

Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> Indeed.  In fact, it might just be long enough to complete the
> work the way it's supposed to be done: on the list.

I have another meeting in Illinois on the 30th; if we can move the AAA
interim (_if_ it is _necessary_ at all) to May 1-2, I'm OK with it.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:43:40 -0800

> interim meetings are not part of the "supposed to be done" ietf process,

Sorry, I actually thought that interim meetings were something of a last
resort, to be held only if all other methods failed to produce consensus.  I
only wish that I had known this when I was co-chairing roamops: we would
have had interim meetings all the time.  I'm thinking Cancun in February,
Amsterdam in July, Nice, Munich in late September... ;-)

> randy, wearing AD hat

gwz, wearing tourist hat

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:33:45 -0800

> resort, to be held only if all other methods failed to produce consensus.

nah.  for that, we lock everyone in a room in minneapolis and only let them
eat pizza until they agree. :-)

sometimes, a wg needs to get a LOT of serious work done, and email just
isn't doing it.  this is the gap interims fill.

randy

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 23:45:00 -0800

>resort, to be held only if all other methods failed to produce consensus.
I

...or when deadlines loom and concentrated effort is needed to meet WG
milestones. In AAA WG, we've been extraordinarily productive in interim
meetings; I shudder to think where we'd be without them.

At this point, while I think that we've hashed out the meta issues with
DIAMETER, there are a lot of smaller issues that we need to get
out of the way. Focusing on these for two days could get us much
closer to being done. Given that we're serious about getting to
WG last call by June, we need that kind of intense effort.

In terms of the interim meeting plan, the thinking is to have a
two-day specification bug bash. Interim meeting participants will
be expected to have read the DIAMETER specification over with
a fine tooth comb, and be ready to discuss issues along with
concrete recommendations for changes. We'll also take on a few
larger issues with the goal of making decisions.

>Amsterdam in July, Nice, Munich in late September... ;-)

Remember, they call them Working Groups because they're supposed to do
work ;)

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:49:25 -0800

> eat pizza until they agree. :-)

That would definitely work!

> isn't doing it.  this is the gap interims fill.

I agree, but Bernard's description of the interim sounds basically like a
document reading party. I have nothing against document reading parties, and
they can be quite useful (witness L2TP), but realistically, they're nothing
that can't be accomplished on a mailing list (in fact, much of IETF activity
could be described as an on-line document reading party.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 04:53:58 -0800

...

> concrete recommendations for changes.

But isn't that precisely where the IETF "method" shines -- I'd hate to think
that nobody on this list had read the drafts...

> We'll also take on a few

But, by definition, we don't _make_ decisions in meetings (interin or
other), right?

> Remember, they call them Working Groups because they're supposed to do

define "work" ;-)

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:42:30 -0800

For those who follow other WG's (most of us, I hope) there are many plans 
for interim meetings coming up around May 1st, since we have to have a 30 
day notice. Hopefully the AD's will talk to each other a bit to avoid 
conflict. For instance, SIP and MIDCOM are hoping to have meetings around 
May1-4th.