Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: End-2-End security

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 11:32:11 -0700

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:29:25PM -0500, Thomas Panagiotis-PTHOMAS1 wrote:
> "2.0 Protocol Overview
> ...
> Diameter servers MUST support the Base protocol, which includes Accounting,
> and both the NASREQ and Mobile IP extensions. Diameter Clients MUST support
> the Base protocol, including Accounting, and MAY support any other extension
> that would be required to provide service."
> 
> So End-2-End security is a MAY for Clients and Servers, right?

The way the text currently reads, yes I guess so. How do others feel?

PatC

---

From: Thomas Panagiotis-PTHOMAS1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:29:25 -0500

Pat,

"2.0 Protocol Overview
...

-Panos

---

From: David Frascone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:53:23 -0500

I like keeping it a MAY

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:58:58 -0700 (PDT)

> The way the text currently reads, yes I guess so. How do others feel?
Hmmm... didn't we decide it was a MUST at the last Interim meeting and at
IETF 50? That's what the minutes say.

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:42:23 -0700

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:53:52PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I thought the concensus at the meeting was that the e2e scheme must be specified 
> and must progress (WG last call etc.) alongside the base protocol. I didn't 
> think that it was every Diameter node MUST implement e2e. Would it be 
> worthwhile if we could get a more fine-grained concensus? Say, along the lines 
> of: "Diameter nodes which process AVPs x,y,z MUST implement e2e, those that 
> process AVPs u,v,w SHOULD implement e2e and others MAY implement e2e".

If any such statement needs to be made, it would be more like "Diameter
implementations that support extension foo or bar, not individual AVPs that
comprises an extension.

PatC

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:52 +0100

Of course, if people are happy to make e2e a MUST or SHOULD for all 
implementations, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Stephen.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:[email-masked]
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com

---

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:34:23 +0300

> So End-2-End security is a MAY for Clients and Servers, right?

I would be in favor of making e2e a MAY for at least clients.

Jari