From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 02:49:38 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4ZDm-0006WF-1N; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:49:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4ZDj-0006U0-PR for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:49:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA07897 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 02:47:58 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext01.nokia.com ([131.228.20.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4ZP3-000853-DS for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:01:18 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext01.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k127nTXd028465; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:49:30 +0200 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:49:29 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:49:28 +0200 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, 2 Feb 2006 09:49:26 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A089A4@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt) Thread-Index: AcYnutvON97zY+J9SGq8413Yh4flaAAEa6lA To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2006 07:49:28.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[3205AED0:01C627CD] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, >The RADEXT WG charter requires that Diameter compatibility issues be=20 >examined as part of each work item. Extending the RFC 3588=20 >NAS-Filter-Rule=20 >syntax does bring up Diameter compatibility issues. This was=20 >pointed out in Issue 130, which was filed in August 2005. > >As I understand it, the DIME WG is being chartered to produce=20 >RFC 3588bis, so one possibility is that they will consider a=20 >NAS-Filter-Rule syntax revision as part of that effort. I'm copying the DiME WG. Is there interest in the Diameter community in revising the NAS-Filter-Rule? For RADIUS, it is currently defined here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt I suggest that if this is of interest to both RADIUS & Diameter, we=20 come-up with a common format that would be usable in both protocols. John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 04:42:40 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4azA-00045w-9Z; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:42:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4az7-00041w-Em for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:42:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA15087 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:40:59 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext03.nokia.com ([131.228.20.95]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4bAR-0003Nb-Tu for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:54:21 -0500 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext03.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k128k32D029426 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:46:04 +0200 Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:51:07 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:51:07 +0200 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, 2 Feb 2006 10:51:06 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08A02@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: Diameter Interop planning Thread-Index: AcYn1c4f56lBB92URTiPzckIxIzCkA== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2006 08:51:07.0344 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE8C0D00:01C627D5] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop planning X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Just to re-iterate the interop info, see below. However, what I need is a rough idea of the number of people interested in participating. Please send the following information: Company Name Protocols interested Number of people attending These can be rough estimates, but we need to make sure we book enough space. Thanks, John =3D=3D=3D=3D I've gotten a large number of responses - about 18 - for an interop, so it looks like it's a go! Ulticom is happy to sponser the interop event, in Mt. Laurel, NJ - which is close to Philadelphia. The current plan is to hold the event starting on Monday April 24th. This is due to the availability of the testing facilities. If this week is a problem for some of you, please let me know immediately. I'm working with Ulticom on setting up a registration page, so they can figure out how much space is needed. Protocols that people have shown interest are: Diameter Base =20 Diameter Credit Control =20 Diameter SIP =20 3GPP interfaces (Cx, Rf, Sh)=20 Diameter EAP =20 Diameter NASREQ =20 Diameter MIP =20 What is needed is a test plan, test cases. A couple of you indicated that you'd be interested in preparing this, so I think the best way to do this would be do document them in an Internet Draft and submit them before the draft cut-off date. As I guide, I'm looking at these pages, from a past interop event: http://standards.ericsson.net/diameter-bake-off/ I'd strongly suggest that all interested parties subscribe to the Diameter Maintanence and Extentions WG mailing list, for discussions. thanks, John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 15:26:56 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4l2e-0003Up-7j; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:26:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4l2c-0003RY-DG for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:26:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA06336 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:25:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4lE3-0001rV-OV for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:38:44 -0500 Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k12KQl3R028991; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:26:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509391975@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: john.loughney@nokia.com, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, gdweber@cisco.com, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:26:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01. txt) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Not that I do have concerns with this. In generic terms that concern is: If WG A cannot reach (or has trouble reaching) consensus/agreement on a specific work item, then what arguments do we have that WG B can do better? Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of > john.loughney@nokia.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 23:49 > To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com; gdweber@cisco.com; > radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of > draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt) > > > Hi all, > > >The RADEXT WG charter requires that Diameter compatibility issues be > >examined as part of each work item. Extending the RFC 3588 > >NAS-Filter-Rule > >syntax does bring up Diameter compatibility issues. This was > >pointed out in Issue 130, which was filed in August 2005. > > > >As I understand it, the DIME WG is being chartered to produce > >RFC 3588bis, so one possibility is that they will consider a > >NAS-Filter-Rule syntax revision as part of that effort. > > I'm copying the DiME WG. Is there interest in the Diameter community > in revising the NAS-Filter-Rule? For RADIUS, it is currently defined > here: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt > > I suggest that if this is of interest to both RADIUS & Diameter, we > come-up with a common format that would be usable in both protocols. > > John > > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 18:04:03 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4nUh-0006IN-3G; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:04:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4nUP-0006EC-Cd for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:03:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24760 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [63.160.138.52] (helo=NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4nfr-0001Pp-OO for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:15:36 -0500 Received: from NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:16:08 -0500 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:16:08 -0500 Received: from MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.77.30]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:16:08 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:16:08 -0500 Message-ID: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D215656006B836@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> Thread-Topic: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt) Thread-Index: AcYoNydoHrzPlLoXSRyZuKBN6KIYYwABbGpA From: "Nelson, David" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2006 21:16:08.0257 (UTC) FILETIME=[E25E1310:01C6283D] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_1c0 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:78.1961 M:98.8113 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:72.4735 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:14 m:14 C:14 r:14 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: NAS-Filter-Rule (was: review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802-01.txt) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Bert Wijnen writes... =20 > If WG A cannot reach (or has trouble reaching) > consensus/agreement on a specific work item, > then what arguments do we have that WG B > can do better? None. However, I don't think that the issue is that the RADEXT WG cannot come to consensus on a technical approach as much as it is the fact that a RADEXT draft is proposing to extend the existing Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule syntax. There are at least two problems here: (1) RADIUS is not supposed to be a super-set of Diameter in any of its features, and (2) failing to address a corresponding extension in Diameter causes difficulty for the translation gateway process. It was suggested that, if an extension to the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule is required for use in RADIUS, that we actually extend the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule, rather that defining a separate RADIUS-NAS-Filter-Rule attribute and syntax. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 03 01:48:21 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4uk0-0005qG-W2; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:48:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4ujy-0005jE-3O for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:48:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA29938 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:46:40 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext04.nokia.com ([131.228.20.96]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4uvT-0001BN-KZ for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:00:13 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext04.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k136m9Ro016358 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:12 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:12 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:12 +0200 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, 3 Feb 2006 08:48:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08CED@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: DiME WG meeting in Dallas Thread-Index: AcYojcxw2qaGFfz5RXylLyvmSGtZAw== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 06:48:12.0619 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD4811B0:01C6288D] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Dime] DiME WG meeting in Dallas X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, While our ADs are sorting out the chairing issues, I wanted to solicit input for the Dallas IETF meeting. I was thinking of summarizing some of the outstanding Diameter Base open issues (if you have any, send them to the mailing list!). Also, discussion of the upcoming Interop event, Diameter test plans, Diameter MIPv6 work, Diameter QoS working would all be good topics. Speak up if you have any topics you wish to discuss. John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 05 21:35:17 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F5wDl-00013z-9h; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:35:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F5wDh-00013U-Ao for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:35:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05409 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F5wPf-0001MB-Pi for dime@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:47:36 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2006 18:34:52 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,90,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="21241288:sNHT47818504" Received: from [10.86.243.80] (che-vpn-cluster-2-335.cisco.com [10.86.243.80]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k162YlPM004456; Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:34:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43E6B5C7.7070605@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:34:47 -0500 From: Anders Kristensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090506020607030405050701" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8f374d0786b25a451ef87d82c076f593 Cc: Subject: [Dime] [Fwd: Re: [Diameter-developers] Question on mismatching realm and host FQDNs] X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090506020607030405050701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On the subject of open Diameter issues, the attached email is Victor's response to a question I raised on the diameter-developers list recently. I'd be very interested in hearing opionions about what the right thing to do in the different cases. Thanks, Anders --------------090506020607030405050701 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [Diameter-developers] Question on mismatching realm and host FQDNs" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: [Diameter-developers] Question on mismatching realm and host FQDNs" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.102]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:41 -0500 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.63]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:41 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:06:39 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2006 19:06:39 -0800 Received: from sj-inbound-c.cisco.com (sj-inbound-c.cisco.com [128.107.234.206]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k0U36ck2026628 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com (HELO toshi17.tari.toshiba.com) ([165.254.55.12]) by sj-inbound-c.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2006 19:06:38 -0800 X-from-outside-Cisco: 165.254.55.12 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.01,231,1136188800"; d="scan'208"; a="194782585:sNHT16301464" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com [165.254.55.12]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0U36Y6c073864; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:34 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <43DD82BB.5090900@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:35 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anders Kristensen CC: diameter-developers@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Diameter-developers] Question on mismatching realm and host FQDNs References: <43DD6FE5.70707@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <43DD6FE5.70707@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Return-Path: vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2006 03:06:39.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[304DF1E0:01C6254A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Anders, Comments inline: > I was wondering how OpenDiameter handles the case where it opens a > connection to a peer and the peer advertises Origin-Realm and > Origin-Host names for itself in the the CEA that do not match what the > local OpenDiameter stack was expecting. > > For example, suppose we have the following OpenDiameter config file > (from the documentation): > > > other.research.org > 0 > > 1 > 0 > > server1.research.org > 1 > > > > > Presumably this means that requests with a Destination-Realm of > other.research.org will be routed to the Diameter node > server1.research.org. But what happens if the node with that name > returns a CEA with Origin-Realm foo.example.com and/or Origin-Host > bar.example.com? Good question. Unfortunately, I did not check the validity of the origin-host in the CEA. We may need to do that. Since the rfc is not clear about the issue, I think it is possible to keep up the connection and treat the new origin host and/or origin realm as new routes. This means adding the new host and/or realm addresses (dynamic route updates) to peer and realm route table respectively. Security threats posed by entities mis-representing the peer you initially contacted can be thwarted if using TLS or IPSec. However, this also means the peer entry from the original configuration should be marked as an in-active peer (run-time only) since there should be no inter-dependent routes. This also means that sebsequent new sessions sending messages to the original peer will fail to route so some notification to session level states regarding host/realm changes may also be needed. Subsequent messages sent to the original realm may not need the same treatment can be routed to other active peers (or even the new peer). In short: a. If origin host is different, add new peer entry, add new entry to existing realm entry. Mark old peer entry as in-active b. if origin realm is different, add new realm, add new host as handlers for new realm. c. If both are different, perform (a) then (b). > > Will the connection be allowed to be used or will it be torn down? If > it's kept up what requests will be routed to the peer, e.g. requests > with what Destination-Realm? See above. Though, maybe further discussion can reveal flaws in the above scheme of keeping the connection alive and updating routes. Victor > > Thanks, > Anders > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log > files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Diameter-developers mailing list > Diameter-developers@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/diameter-developers > > --------------090506020607030405050701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --------------090506020607030405050701-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 08:34:05 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F66VJ-0000cu-D0; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:34:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F66VH-0000ZE-Tv for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:34:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18460 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:32:23 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext04.nokia.com ([131.228.20.96]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F66hT-0003uq-4l for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:46:40 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext04.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k16CCJb4021018 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:12:22 +0200 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:12:33 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:12:33 +0200 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, 6 Feb 2006 14:12:30 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A092EE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: Diameter Interop pages live Thread-Index: AcYrFfpgw88ppHozSYC33mSnTfbqUQAAHcHw To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2006 12:12:33.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BFAD620:01C62B16] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, =20 Here's the news about the Diameter Interop event. =20 br, John ________________________________ John, =20 I am happy to report the Interop pages are live on the Ulticom website: http://www.ulticom.com/diameter-interop/index.asp =20 Please invite your members to register. We'll post the technical/test specification info as soon as you can get it to us.=20 =20 Regards, Debby =20 Debby Stefaniak=20 Sr. Manager, Marketing Communications=20 Ulticom, Inc.=20 Phone: 856.787.2718=20 Fax: 856.222.9947=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 09:59:56 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F67qO-000559-1v; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:59:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F67qM-00054Q-Cz for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:59:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24990 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com ([165.254.55.12] helo=toshi17.tari.toshiba.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F682I-0000g5-Gk for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:12:15 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (toshi17.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k16ExI0V099334; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:59:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <43E76447.5040906@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:59:19 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john.loughney@nokia.com Subject: Re: [Dime] DiME WG meeting in Dallas References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08CED@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08CED@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi John, Regarding the base protocol document, this issue maybe superficial but maybe the auth and/or acct statemachine (sec 8) should reflect server initiated request messages. Particularly, explicit support for RAR maybe useful and generic text for all others such as PNR can also be added. victor >Hi all, > >While our ADs are sorting out the chairing issues, I wanted to solicit >input for the Dallas IETF meeting. I was thinking of summarizing some >of the outstanding Diameter Base open issues (if you have any, send them >to the mailing list!). Also, discussion of the upcoming Interop event, >Diameter test plans, Diameter MIPv6 work, Diameter QoS working would all >be good topics. Speak up if you have any topics you wish to discuss. > >John > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 04:08:16 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Opc-00020t-Pn; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:08:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Opc-0001zw-15 for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:08:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05374 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 04:06:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6P1p-0007Ub-Dk for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:20:54 -0500 Received: from mail1.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lizzard.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1797sxk004191; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:07:54 +0100 Received: from fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net (fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net [157.163.133.201]) by mail1.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1797s02031536; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:07:54 +0100 Received: from MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.145]) by fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:07:43 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: AW: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:07:36 +0100 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live Thread-Index: AcYrFfpgw88ppHozSYC33mSnTfbqUQAAHcHwACZVJQAABGI2IAAA/pZQ From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" To: "Huetter, Andreas" , "Schendel, Jens" , "Buehler, Gregor" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2006 09:07:43.0761 (UTC) FILETIME=[F485F810:01C62BC5] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Rackwitz, Karsten" , dime@ietf.org, "Burghardt, Frank" X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org hi andreas,=20 the ietf meeting (ietf#65) will take place in march 19-24. the diameter interop is a separate event that takes place in april = 24-28.=20 i suspect that dime will have ~ 2 hour slot at the next ietf to discuss = various charter items but there will be no time to perform interop = testing.=20 hence, only a single diameter interop event.=20 ciao hannes > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Huetter, Andreas=20 > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2006 09:41 > An: Schendel, Jens; Buehler, Gregor; Tschofenig, Hannes > Cc: Burghardt, Frank; Rackwitz, Karsten;=20 > dime-bounces@ietf.org; john.loughney@nokia.com; dime@ietf.org > Betreff: AW: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live >=20 > Hello guys, >=20 >=20 > and what's about with the show at March in Dallas US: >=20 > (March 19-24, 2006), "http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-65.html" >=20 > ??? >=20 > Will there be 2 interop-events??? >=20 >=20 > Best regards > Andreas=20 >=20 >=20 > Yours sincerely / Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen > Andreas Huetter >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------=20 > Andreas H=FCtter=20 > Siemens AG, Com MN CC TS SI 2 > Siemensdamm 50=20 > D-13629 Berlin (Federal Republic of Germany)=20 > Building 10, Room C 344 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------=20 > Phone: +49-30-386-20026 > Mobile: +49-173-6161127 > FAX: +49-30-386-28377=20 > Email: andreas.huetter@siemens.com=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- =20 >=20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Schendel, Jens=20 > Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2006 07:32 > An: Huetter, Andreas; Buehler, Gregor > Cc: Burghardt, Frank; Rackwitz, Karsten > Betreff: FW: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live >=20 > FYI >=20 > Gru=DF, Jens >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of john.loughney@nokia.com > Sent: Montag, 6. Februar 2006 13:13 > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live >=20 >=20 > Hi all, > =20 > Here's the news about the Diameter Interop event. =20 >=20 > br, > John >=20 > ________________________________ >=20 >=20 > John, > =20 > I am happy to report the Interop pages are live on the=20 > Ulticom website: > http://www.ulticom.com/diameter-interop/index.asp > =20 > Please invite your members to register. We'll post the technical/test > specification info as soon as you can get it to us.=20 > =20 > Regards, > Debby > =20 > Debby Stefaniak=20 > Sr. Manager, Marketing Communications=20 > Ulticom, Inc.=20 > Phone: 856.787.2718=20 > Fax: 856.222.9947=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 23:55:19 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6hMN-0000tK-B0; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:55:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6OQB-0001No-7x; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:41:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA03722; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 03:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from thoth.sbs.de ([192.35.17.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6OcM-0006W7-Aj; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:54:35 -0500 Received: from mail3.siemens.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoth.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k178f8AY002954; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:41:08 +0100 Received: from blnss35a.ww100.siemens.net (blnss35a.ww100.siemens.net [194.138.127.221]) by mail3.siemens.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k178f7Eh005396; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:41:07 +0100 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Subject: AW: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:41:06 +0100 Message-ID: <9455E8227DC5C14E82337653F583A9AC0196BCD2@blnss35a.ww100.siemens.net> Thread-Topic: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live thread-index: AcYrFfpgw88ppHozSYC33mSnTfbqUQAAHcHwACZVJQAABGI2IA== From: "Huetter, Andreas" To: "Schendel, Jens" , "Buehler, Gregor" , "Tschofenig, Hannes" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:55:17 -0500 Cc: "Rackwitz, Karsten" , dime-bounces@ietf.org, dime@ietf.org, "Burghardt, Frank" X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hello guys, and what's about with the show at March in Dallas US: (March 19-24, 2006), "http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-65.html" ??? Will there be 2 interop-events??? Best regards Andreas=20 Yours sincerely / Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen Andreas Huetter -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 Andreas H=FCtter=20 Siemens AG, Com MN CC TS SI 2 Siemensdamm 50=20 D-13629 Berlin (Federal Republic of Germany)=20 Building 10, Room C 344 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----=20 Phone: +49-30-386-20026 Mobile: +49-173-6161127 FAX: +49-30-386-28377=20 Email: andreas.huetter@siemens.com=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- =20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: Schendel, Jens=20 Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2006 07:32 An: Huetter, Andreas; Buehler, Gregor Cc: Burghardt, Frank; Rackwitz, Karsten Betreff: FW: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live FYI Gru=DF, Jens -----Original Message----- From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = john.loughney@nokia.com Sent: Montag, 6. Februar 2006 13:13 To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live Hi all, =20 Here's the news about the Diameter Interop event. =20 br, John ________________________________ John, =20 I am happy to report the Interop pages are live on the Ulticom website: http://www.ulticom.com/diameter-interop/index.asp =20 Please invite your members to register. We'll post the technical/test specification info as soon as you can get it to us.=20 =20 Regards, Debby =20 Debby Stefaniak=20 Sr. Manager, Marketing Communications=20 Ulticom, Inc.=20 Phone: 856.787.2718=20 Fax: 856.222.9947=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 05:43:45 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F79H7-0000d2-Di; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:43:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F79H4-0000az-Tz for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:43:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07876 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 05:41:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F79Te-0001qo-Ti for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:56:45 -0500 Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (h192-11-222-163.lucent.com [192.11.222.163]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k19AhOZg015513; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 04:43:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k19AhMnn017514; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 04:43:23 -0600 (CST) Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:43:20 +0100 Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15509433E79@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" To: dime@ietf.org Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:43:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: "David Kessens \(E-mail\)" Subject: [Dime] John Loughney appointed as acting WG chair X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org DIME WG members, David Kessens and I are still in the process of selecting a WG chair (or co-chairs). However, in order to ensure that proper planning and scheduling for the upcoming IETF, we have asked John to be acting chair for now. He has agreed (Thanks). This alos allows the WG to get documents accepted/recorded as WG documents. John, we had these listed in the charter write-up: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-api-04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-alfano-aaa-qosprot-03.txt http://tools.ietf.org/wg/aaa/draft-ietf-aaa-uri/draft-ietf-aaa-uri-01.txt http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/drafts/draft-tschofenig-mip6-aaa-ha-diameter-00.txt http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-le-aaa-diameter-mobileipv6-04.txt Do you want to take them as is, or do we rather see new revs with the WG name in it, i.e. aka draft-dime-xxx-00.txt. I think that would make sense. Can you get the authors to submit such docs before the 00 deadline (Feb 27 I beleive). Formal announcement will come from IESG-secretary in the next day or two. David and I hope to be able to select the WG chairs soon, but we're alos both traveling, so lgistics are not easy. Please bear with us. And Pls help John to get a good session scheduled at the upcoming IETF. Bert _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 15:24:47 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7ILP-0007NC-4q; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:24:47 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7ILN-0007MC-Eu for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:24:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27107 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:22:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com ([165.254.55.12] helo=toshi17.tari.toshiba.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7IY6-00069l-BG for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:37:55 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (toshi17.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k19KODXA012686; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:24:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <43EBA4EE.9040104@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:24:14 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john.loughney@nokia.com Subject: Re: [Dime] DiME WG meeting in Dallas References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08CED@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A08CED@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I'd like to post a question regarding the trailing [*fixed] avp set of diameter-message ABNF in Sec 3.2 of the base proto (where: diameter-message = header [*fixed] [*required] [*optional] [*fixed]). I'm not familiar with the history of this layout but in which scenario(s) are trailing fixed avps used ? So far appending of trailing avps are most relevant to proxies and relays but route-records and proxy-info are normally tagged as optional as they should be. And at the moment, there does'nt seem to be any application defining a trailing fixed avp. Maybe this format can be relaxed to help simplify parsing. Victor >Hi all, > >While our ADs are sorting out the chairing issues, I wanted to solicit >input for the Dallas IETF meeting. I was thinking of summarizing some >of the outstanding Diameter Base open issues (if you have any, send them >to the mailing list!). Also, discussion of the upcoming Interop event, >Diameter test plans, Diameter MIPv6 work, Diameter QoS working would all >be good topics. Speak up if you have any topics you wish to discuss. > >John > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 14 22:53:39 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9DjX-0007Iu-4A; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:53:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9DjV-0007Ip-CQ for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:53:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA02416 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:51:51 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext02.nokia.com ([131.228.20.94]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F9DxN-000818-Sz for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:08:02 -0500 Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext02.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k1F3rURT031574 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:53:31 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:53:30 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:53:29 +0200 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, 15 Feb 2006 05:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869BF3@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: Diameter Interop URL Thread-Index: AcYx42FoQwwK4oqhQGaC98/SUjaI6A== To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2006 03:53:29.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[62068710:01C631E3] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop URL X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, The previous link I gave out seemed to disappear. The correct URL is: http://www.ulticom.com/html/diameter-interop/index.asp John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 15 10:40:58 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9Om1-0008LG-WB; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:40:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9Olz-0008A0-RW; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:40:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18616; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:39:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from willow.neustar.com ([209.173.53.84]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F9P02-0006nw-RN; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:55:27 -0500 Received: from ietf.org (stiedprweb1.va.neustar.com [10.91.34.42]) by willow.neustar.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k1FFek9W003520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:40:46 GMT Received: from mirror by ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F9Olq-0002vg-N9; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:40:46 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain Mime-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-announce@ietf.org From: IESG Secretary Message-Id: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:40:46 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] WG Action: Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org A new IETF working group has been formed in the Operations and Management Area. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. +++ Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (dime) =========================================== Current Status: Active Working Group WG Chair(s): Acting: John Loughney Operations and Management Area Director(s): Bert Wijnen David Kessens Operations and Management Area Advisor: Bert Wijnen Mailing Lists: General Discussion: dime@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/index.html Description of Working Group: The Diameter Maintanence and Extensions WG will focus on maintenance and extensions to the Diameter protocol required to enable its use in applications such as IP telephony and Local Area Network authentication, authorization and accounting. The IETF has recently completed work on the Diameter Base protocol. There is on-going work on defining RADIUS extensions. The work done in the DiME WG will ensure that work done in RADext is also available for Diameter. The immediate goals of the DiME working group are to address the following issues: - Maintaining and/or progressing, along the standards track, the Diameter procotol and Diameter Applications. Every revised document to be "maintained" requires explicit approval before it will be accepted as a WG document. - An informational RFC on a Diameter API. - Diameter Application design guidelines. This document will provide guidelines for design of new Diameter Applications. It will detail when to consider reusing an existing application and when to develop a new application. Interaction between vendor & SDO specific extensions and applications will be covered. - Diameter QoS application. This document will develop a new Diameter application for supporting QoS in AAA deployments. The NSIS WG will be consulted on proper design of QoS attributes. - Diameter URI. RFC 3588 defines an AAA URI which has some known problems. A document revising the AAA URI as a specific Diameter URI will be developed. - Diameter extensions for MIPv6. This may include support for Mobile IP extensions, like FMIP; as well as support for MIP bootstrapping. Additionally, AAA systems require interoperability in order to work. Uncontrolled extensibility is not a mechanism for interoperability. Therefore, the working group, along with the AD, will need to evaluate any potential extensions and require verification that the proposed extension is needed. Coordination with other IETF working groups and other SDOs will used to ensure this. Milestones Mar 06 Submit Diameter API to IESG as an information RFC. May 06 Submit Diameter URI to IESG as an information RFC. Sep 06 Submit Diameter QoS Application to IESG as a Proposed Standard. Sep 06 Submit Diameter Application Design Guidelines to IESG as an informational RFC. Jan 07 Submit Diameter Base to IESG as a Draft Standard _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 16 06:30:03 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9hKl-0006tI-IO; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:30:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9hIM-00064F-So for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:27:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12833 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:25:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F9hWZ-0000QX-CM for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:42:16 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2006 03:27:25 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,119,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="405986494:sNHT29974606" Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1GBROWF009332 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:27:24 -0800 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, 16 Feb 2006 03:27:14 -0800 Message-ID: <4C0FAAC489C8B74F96BEAD85EAEB2625018BF024@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: Charter omission? Thread-Index: AcYy6+8qm9pu4f09SC2dg8n2HLOB/Q== From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2006 11:27:24.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[F59565B0:01C632EB] X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:30:01 -0500 Subject: [Dime] Charter omission? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Looking over the charter I notice that there is no mention of MIBs, though a milestone is to progress Diameter Base to Draft Standard. Isn't a MIB required for that? Also, the first deadline (for submitting the API document for publication as an Informational RFC) is next month. Isn't that a bit aggressive, esp. considering that there isn't even a -00 draft yet? I am concerned because it seems that WGs (most recently radext) often get in trouble by setting unrealistic goals & failing to meet them. ~gwz Treat the Earth well.=20 It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -- Kenyan Proverb Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. -- Chief Seattle _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 16 06:55:30 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9hjO-00085j-MH; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:55:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9hjN-00081H-3O for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:55:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA14711 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:53:41 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from mgw-ext02.nokia.com ([131.228.20.94]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F9hxY-0001Kg-H5 for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:10:10 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext02.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k1GBtKic005570; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:55:22 +0200 Received: from esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.177]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:54:50 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:54:50 +0200 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 Subject: RE: [Dime] Charter omission? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:54:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869C50@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <4C0FAAC489C8B74F96BEAD85EAEB2625018BF024@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [Dime] Charter omission? Thread-Index: AcYy6+8qm9pu4f09SC2dg8n2HLOB/QAATGHg To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2006 11:54:50.0057 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA611390:01C632EF] X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org >Looking over the charter I notice that there is no mention of=20 >MIBs, though a milestone is to progress Diameter Base to Draft=20 >Standard. Isn't a MIB required for that? =20 I could be wrong, but I didn't think MIBs were required. However, now that you mention it, a MIB would be a good idea. Anyone interested in writing a MIB? > Also, the first deadline (for submitting the API document for publication as an=20 >Informational RFC) is next month. >Isn't that a bit aggressive, esp. considering that there isn't=20 >even a -00 draft yet? I am concerned because it seems that=20 >WGs (most recently radext) often get in trouble by setting unrealistic goals &=20 >failing to meet them. Remember the IETF moves at lightning speed. Actually, the charter was originally drafted back in October, it has taken some time to actually get approved. The idea is to take the current draft from the AAA WG and last call it. John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 16 07:47:28 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9iXg-0004PO-7d; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:47:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F9iXe-0004PJ-TR for dime@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:47:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18982 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:45:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F9ilt-0003Ko-34 for dime@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:02:09 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2006 04:47:18 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1GClHWF012796; Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:47:17 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Dime] Charter omission? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:47:14 -0800 Message-ID: <4C0FAAC489C8B74F96BEAD85EAEB2625018BF02F@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [Dime] Charter omission? Thread-Index: AcYy6+8qm9pu4f09SC2dg8n2HLOB/QAATGHgAAJJG1A= From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2006 12:47:17.0223 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E3C7F70:01C632F7] X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org john.loughney@nokia.com supposedly = scribbled: >> Looking over the charter I notice that there is no mention of MIBs, >> though a milestone is to progress Diameter Base to Draft Standard. >> Isn't a MIB required for that? >=20 > I could be wrong, but I didn't think MIBs were required. =20 Hmm, IIRC one of the big drivers behind the creation of the RADIUS MIBs = was the desire to progress RFC 2865 to DS. Maybe things have changed, = or I'm just mistaken. > However, now that you mention it, a MIB would be a good idea. Anyone > interested in writing a MIB? =20 OK. >=20 >> Also, the first deadline (for submitting the API document for >> publication as an Informational RFC) is next month. >> Isn't that a bit aggressive, esp. considering that there isn't even a >> -00 draft yet? I am concerned because it seems that WGs (most >> recently radext) often get in trouble by setting unrealistic goals & >> failing to meet them. >=20 > Remember the IETF moves at lightning speed. Actually, the charter was > originally drafted back in October, it has taken some time to > actually get approved. The idea is to take the current draft from > the AAA WG and last call it. =20 That seems to have expired ~6 months ago... =20 >=20 > John Hope this helps, ~gwz Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 21 12:08:43 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBazj-000400-0l; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:08:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBazi-0003zv-KI for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:08:10 -0500 Received: from htr2.enterasys.com ([63.160.138.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBazb-0005fp-BS for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:08:10 -0500 Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com (nhrocavg2 [134.141.79.124]) by htr2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1LH19oU000507 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:01:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from psmtp.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:35 -0500 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:34 -0500 Received: from MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.77.30]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:21 -0500 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: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:07:20 -0500 Message-ID: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D215656021907F@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QoS and IEEE 802 thread-index: AcY2/2PsuM4V9/cATRm8w5JVZP5DQgACQ+Ew From: "Nelson, David" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2006 17:07:21.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[47307830:01C63709] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_1c0 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:78.1961 M:98.8113 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:99.9000 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:14 m:14 C:14 r:14 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: QoS and IEEE 802 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hannes Tschofenig writes... > > draft-ietf-radext-vlan-priority-00.txt > > draft-ietf-radext-filter-rules-00.txt > > draft-ietf-radext-redirection-00.txt >=20 > Is the first document about QoS (is priority QoS for you)? No. The draft includes IEEE 802.1 priority queues. It does not extend to anything like RSVP or DiffServ. We agreed that the "full" QoS work would take place in the DIME WG, with coordination with RADEXT as needed. > What are your thoughts about a common QoS approach? Different IEEE 802 > standards specify different QoS parameters and require RADIUS > interaction. There is work in 3GPP2 and ongoing work in Wimax. Recently > someone posted a draft about the DSL proposal in this area. I ask this > question because I noticed that you seem to like a unified approach. Yes, a unified approach would be highly desirable. As indicated, DIME has the lead on this. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 21 12:34:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBbPO-0005Sp-OH; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:34:42 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBbPN-0005Sb-Fj for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:34:41 -0500 Received: from gecko.sbs.de ([194.138.37.40]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBbPL-0006Ix-Rh for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:34:41 -0500 Received: from mail2.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gecko.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1LHYWbg003640; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:34:32 +0100 Received: from fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net (fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net [157.163.133.201]) by mail2.sbs.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1LHYV0D032309; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:34:32 +0100 Received: from MCHP7IEA.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.145]) by fthw9xoa.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:34:29 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:34:29 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QoS and IEEE 802 thread-index: AcY2/2PsuM4V9/cATRm8w5JVZP5DQgACQ+EwAAGdyVA= From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" To: "Nelson, David" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2006 17:34:29.0947 (UTC) FILETIME=[11CE40B0:01C6370D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] AW: QoS and IEEE 802 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi David,=20 it is interesting to hear that you think that the generic RADIUS QoS = will also be done in Dime.=20 Fine for me.=20 Ciao Hannes > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Nelson, David > Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Februar 2006 18:07 > An: radiusext@ops.ietf.org > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Betreff: RE: QoS and IEEE 802 >=20 > Hannes Tschofenig writes... >=20 > > > draft-ietf-radext-vlan-priority-00.txt > > > draft-ietf-radext-filter-rules-00.txt > > > draft-ietf-radext-redirection-00.txt > >=20 > > Is the first document about QoS (is priority QoS for you)? >=20 > No. The draft includes IEEE 802.1 priority queues. It does=20 > not extend > to anything like RSVP or DiffServ. We agreed that the "full" QoS work > would take place in the DIME WG, with coordination with RADEXT as > needed. >=20 > > What are your thoughts about a common QoS approach?=20 > Different IEEE 802 > > standards specify different QoS parameters and require RADIUS > > interaction. There is work in 3GPP2 and ongoing work in Wimax. > Recently > > someone posted a draft about the DSL proposal in this area.=20 > I ask this > > question because I noticed that you seem to like a unified approach. >=20 > Yes, a unified approach would be highly desirable. As indicated, DIME > has the lead on this. >=20 >=20 > -- > to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. > archive: >=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 21 13:30:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBcH9-0000un-Nu; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:30:15 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBcH8-0000uh-F9 for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:30:14 -0500 Received: from htr2.enterasys.com ([63.160.138.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBcH1-0000BP-7q for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:30:14 -0500 Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com (nhrocavg2 [134.141.79.124]) by htr2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1LINRoU013711 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:23:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from psmtp.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:29:57 -0500 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:29:56 -0500 Received: from MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.77.30]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:29:22 -0500 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: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:29:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D2156560219081@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QoS and IEEE 802 thread-index: AcY2/2PsuM4V9/cATRm8w5JVZP5DQgACQ+EwAAGdyVAAAU6QoA== From: "Nelson, David" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2006 18:29:23.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[BCA680E0:01C63714] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_1c0 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:78.1961 M:98.9607 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:53.0022 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:14 m:14 C:14 r:14 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: QoS and IEEE 802 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hannes Tschofenig writes... > it is interesting to hear that you think that the generic RADIUS QoS will > also be done in Dime. That is my understanding of the agreement among the affected WG Chairs and Area Directors, coming out of the discussion of where to do this work, held at IETF 63. DIME will coordinate with RADEXT as may be necessary. That's not to say that the generic QoS solution for RADIUS will be at parity with that for Diameter. That remains to be discussed. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 21 16:03:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBefH-0000eI-3S; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:19 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBefF-0000dR-Q5 for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:17 -0500 Received: from htr2.enterasys.com ([63.160.138.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBef8-0000my-Hh for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:17 -0500 Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com (nhrocavg2 [134.141.79.124]) by htr2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1LKuVoU011118 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:56:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from psmtp.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:04 -0500 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:03 -0500 Received: from MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.77.30]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0500 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: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:02:21 -0500 Message-ID: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D2156560219083@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two thread-index: AcY3I+lie98gVy4QTH6mVGD0CeGvWQABUJfA From: "Nelson, David" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2006 21:02:21.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B6A8E40:01C6372A] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_1c0 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:79.5348 M:98.0742 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:82.4495 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:14 m:14 C:14 r:14 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Bernard Aboba writes... =20 > One of the items on the DIME WG agenda will probably be RFC 3588bis, > which includes the definition of the NAS-Filter-Rule syntax. =20 > However, the DIME WG milestones involve bringing RFC 3588 to Draft > Standard, which typically precludes addition of new features. Does that mean that DIME has to choose between advancing to the base Diameter protocol to DS and maintaining compatibility with RADIUS Extensions? Both are charter items for DIME. Tough choice. I think it would be a mistake for RADEXT to standardize a non-interoperable extension to NAS-Filter-Rule, and that our charter requirement of maintaining Diameter compatibility would potentially preclude such action, in any event. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 22 01:18:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBnKN-0004hp-4M; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:18:19 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBnKM-0004hh-5V for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:18:18 -0500 Received: from mgw-ext01.nokia.com ([131.228.20.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBnKH-0001ZW-N7 for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:18:18 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext01.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k1M6I7iV024004; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:18:10 +0200 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:18:10 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:18:10 +0200 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 Subject: RE: [Dime] RE: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:18:09 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869CBC@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D2156560219083@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] RE: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two Thread-Index: AcY3I+lie98gVy4QTH6mVGD0CeGvWQABUJfAABObHMA= From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2006 06:18:10.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0B919F0:01C63777] X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org David, My opinion is: >> One of the items on the DIME WG agenda will probably be RFC 3588bis,=20 >> which includes the definition of the NAS-Filter-Rule syntax. >> However, the DIME WG milestones involve bringing RFC 3588 to Draft=20 >> Standard, which typically precludes addition of new features. > >Does that mean that DIME has to choose between advancing to=20 >the base Diameter protocol to DS and maintaining compatibility=20 >with RADIUS Extensions? Both are charter items for DIME. =20 >Tough choice. > >I think it would be a mistake for RADEXT to standardize a=20 >non-interoperable extension to NAS-Filter-Rule, and that our=20 >charter requirement of maintaining Diameter compatibility=20 >would potentially preclude such action, in any event. Better to do what is correct. The DiME wg would like feedback about the NAS-Filter-Rule - is the communitity happy with the current definition, or does it want to be improved or changed. John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 22 01:20:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBnMC-0004sm-Vy; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:20:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBhtw-00060K-0q for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:30:40 -0500 Received: from bay106-f28.bay106.hotmail.com ([65.54.161.38] helo=hotmail.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBhtu-0003Uy-P6 for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:30:40 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:30:37 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 65.54.161.200 by by106fd.bay106.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:30:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.24.19.2] X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] X-Sender: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com In-Reply-To: <3CFB564E055A594B82C4FE89D2156560219083@MABOSEVS2.ets.enterasys.com> From: "Bernard Aboba" To: dnelson@enterasys.com, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Bcc: Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:30:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2006 00:30:37.0821 (UTC) FILETIME=[33D17AD0:01C63747] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:20:12 -0500 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] RE: RADEXT Agenda for IETF65, Take Two X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org >Does that mean that DIME has to choose between advancing to the base >Diameter protocol to DS and maintaining compatibility with RADIUS >Extensions? Not necessarily. It may be possible to bring RFC 3588bis to Draft Standard while handling NAS-Filter-Rule extensions in another document, at Proposed Standard. At this point, I'm not clear about what will be covered in the Diameter Interop event (for example, how will interop testing of the "NAS-Filter-Rule" feature be handled?) >I think it would be a mistake for RADEXT to standardize a >non-interoperable extension to NAS-Filter-Rule, and that our charter >requirement of maintaining Diameter compatibility would potentially >preclude such action, in any event. Right. The original NAS-Filter-Rule syntax was defined in RFC 3588, and the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is defined in RFC 4005, so that changes to the syntax cannot evolve independently without impacting Diameter. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 22 04:38:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBqSP-0007V5-01; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:38:49 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBqSN-0007Uw-TL for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:38:47 -0500 Received: from lhrga01-in.huawei.com ([57.66.76.5] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBqSM-0001db-Kc for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:38:47 -0500 Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.9]) by lhrga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IV300AVW051Y6@lhrga01-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:10:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IV300LAB167OM@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:32:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxml02-in ([172.24.1.6]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IV3003ZF1679Q@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:32:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from z49940 ([10.164.55.54]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IV300KEY1EZY1@szxml02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:37:55 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:25:20 +0800 From: z49940 To: dime@ietf.org Message-id: <000001c63791$ea2cada0$3637a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [Dime] Some questions about RFC3588 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hello everyone: During this time , I'm reading Diameter Base Protocol , and I want to ask some questions because I can't understand what means. In Section 4 (Page 39) , the text is " Each AVP of type OctetString MUST be padded to align on a 32-bit boundary, while other AVP types align naturally. A number of zero- valued bytes are added to the end of the AVP Data field till a word boundary is reached. The length of the padding is not reflected in the AVP Length field. " 1.My question is whether the zero-valued bytes are padded on a 32-bit boundary or not , the text "till a word boundary is reached" , what means "a word" here , 32-bit or 16-bit ? 2." The length of the padding is not reflected in the AVP Length field.", I understand this means the length of the padding is not included in AVP Length , I want to know why ,and how could the receiver handle in this case ? Because when receiver received the AVP , it would take the AVP Data according to AVP Length , How could the receiver identify the following data is the padding data or the next AVP header , and how long is the padding data , where is the next AVP Code? Thanks Selina _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 22 10:58:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBwNi-0002Mm-N2; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:58:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBwNh-0002Mh-1Y for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:58:21 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FBwNf-00017a-Pn for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:58:21 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2006 07:58:20 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,137,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="22407688:sNHT55479036" Received: from [161.44.55.246] (dhcp-161-44-55-246.cisco.com [161.44.55.246]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1MFwHPO004082; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:58:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43FC8A19.5070002@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:58:17 -0500 From: Anders Kristensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: z49940 Subject: Re: [Dime] Some questions about RFC3588 References: <000001c63791$ea2cada0$3637a40a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c63791$ea2cada0$3637a40a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org z49940 wrote: > Hello everyone: > During this time , I'm reading Diameter Base Protocol , and I want > to ask some questions because I can't understand what means. > In Section 4 (Page 39) , the text is > " Each AVP of type OctetString MUST be padded to align on a 32-bit > boundary, while other AVP types align naturally. A number of zero- > valued bytes are added to the end of the AVP Data field till a word > boundary is reached. The length of the padding is not reflected in > the AVP Length field. " > 1.My question is whether the zero-valued bytes are padded on a 32-bit > boundary or not , the text "till a word boundary is reached" , what > means "a word" here , 32-bit or 16-bit ? 32-bit. > 2." The length of the padding is not reflected in the AVP Length > field.", I understand this means the length of the padding is not > included in AVP Length , I want to know why ,and how could the receiver > handle in this case ? If the padding was included in the length field the receiver would have no way of knowing whether the AVP value contained 1, 2 or 3 padding octets at the end. Because when receiver received the AVP , it would > take the AVP Data according to AVP Length , How could the receiver > identify the following data is the padding data or the next AVP header , > and how long is the padding data , where is the next AVP Code? It knows that the AVP aligns on a 32-bit boundary so if the AVP length is 27 it knows there's one octet of padding. The receiver must drop the padding and read the next AVP (or the next message if the end of the current message has been reached) from there. Anders > > Thanks > Selina > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 24 01:21:03 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCWK6-0007Pn-Cm; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:21:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCWK5-0007Ol-8V for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:21:01 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCWK4-0006lj-2P for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:21:01 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i11so544178wra for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:20:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=lAbm8sge1+RZTWrVKOYz0vKyjiELrvAYhPobcdN31OLWC/BV6enPCqAU5gMdQKaP50pyOKk9v2mm4jU5lHPCJ9G5uUhlfr1csvTIa/C8cI8EckOJYLFHOVdb8vzb7KfPRiApzTNhLD1N7FmTOlxFHdYE0MQ8MvwhCIfZZGmmBT4= Received: by 10.65.233.19 with SMTP id k19mr3379476qbr; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.254.5 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:20:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:20:59 -0800 From: "David Connelly" To: dime@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Subject: [Dime] A few more RFC3588 questions... X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I have started work on a Diameter implementation and have a few questions regarding RFC3588 if anyone can help out: The following description of the election process from 5.6.4 is confusing: "The comparison proceeds by considering the shorter OctetString to be padded with zeros so that it length is the same as the length of the longer, then performing an octet-by-octet unsigned comparison with the first octet being most significant. Any remaining octets are assumed to have value 0x80." How can there be remaining octets if the shorter OctetString was already padded with zeros? Should the shorter string be padded with zeros or 0x80? OpenDiameter seems to pad with 0x80's, but I'm not sure if this interpretation is correct. Also, why is type DiameterIdentity of type OctetString rather than UTF8String? Won't this present an interoperability issue between two peers which don't happen to use the same encoding for AVPs of type DiameterIdentity? Or is there another standard which addresses how FQDN's should be encoded in Diameter messages? I noticed that Ethereal happens to interpret DiameterIdentity as UTF8String, but was wondering if it was safe to make this assumption in a Diameter implementation as well. Thanks, David Connelly BEA Systems, Inc. dconnelly@gmail.com _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 24 09:40:44 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCe7g-0004Uj-Iz; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:40:44 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCe7f-0004Rx-43 for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:40:43 -0500 Received: from mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com ([165.254.55.12] helo=toshi17.tari.toshiba.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCe7c-000591-R9 for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:40:43 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (toshi17.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1OEeaut065156; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:40:37 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <43FF1AE6.1020804@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:40:38 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Connelly Subject: Re: [Dime] A few more RFC3588 questions... References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi David, >I have started work on a Diameter implementation and have a few >questions regarding RFC3588 if anyone can help out: > >The following description of the election process from 5.6.4 is confusing: > >"The comparison proceeds by considering the shorter OctetString to be >padded with zeros so that it length is the same as the length of the >longer, then performing an octet-by-octet unsigned comparison with the >first octet being most significant. Any remaining octets are assumed >to have value 0x80." > >How can there be remaining octets if the shorter OctetString was >already padded with zeros? Should the shorter string be padded with >zeros or 0x80? OpenDiameter seems to pad with 0x80's, but I'm not sure >if this interpretation is correct. > > I generally agree. I dont have any strong opinion about this but if the FQDN comparison is meant to be a simple string comparison then zero padding should be used. In that sense I'm not even sure if padding is useful since if both strings are equal up to the length of the shorter string, then the longer string would normally be more significant. I'm also wondering if there is any precedence regarding FQDN comparisons in general, i.e. when comparing host having the same domain but the strings lengths are not equal. victor >Also, why is type DiameterIdentity of type OctetString rather than >UTF8String? Won't this present an interoperability issue between two >peers which don't happen to use the same encoding for AVPs of type >DiameterIdentity? Or is there another standard which addresses how >FQDN's should be encoded in Diameter messages? I noticed that >Ethereal happens to interpret DiameterIdentity as UTF8String, but was >wondering if it was safe to make this assumption in a Diameter >implementation as well. > >Thanks, >David Connelly >BEA Systems, Inc. >dconnelly@gmail.com > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 24 11:31:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCfrI-0005dp-A9; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:31:56 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCfrH-0005dk-66 for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:31:55 -0500 Received: from mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com ([165.254.55.12] helo=toshi17.tari.toshiba.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCfrF-0000bF-Sn for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:31:55 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (toshi17.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1OGVmNX065628 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:31:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <43FF34F5.7010301@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:31:49 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Diameter Interop pages live References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A092EE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01A092EE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I have requested publication of the initial version of the Diameter Interop Test Suite document. Until it is available in the repositories you can view it at: http://www.opendiameter.org/docs/draft-fajardo-dime-interop-test-suite-00.txt Regards, Victor Fajardo >Hi all, > >Here's the news about the Diameter Interop event. > >br, >John > >________________________________ > > >John, > >I am happy to report the Interop pages are live on the Ulticom website: >http://www.ulticom.com/diameter-interop/index.asp > >Please invite your members to register. We'll post the technical/test >specification info as soon as you can get it to us. > >Regards, >Debby > >Debby Stefaniak >Sr. Manager, Marketing Communications >Ulticom, Inc. >Phone: 856.787.2718 >Fax: 856.222.9947 > > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 24 16:20:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCkMv-0006hH-1B; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:20:53 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCkMt-0006eE-S6 for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCkMs-0002OP-M4 for dime@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2006 16:20:51 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,144,1139202000"; d="scan'208"; a="83084582:sNHT27601624" Received: from [161.44.55.246] (dhcp-161-44-55-246.cisco.com [161.44.55.246]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1OLKoqM019114 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:20:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <43FF78B1.1070304@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:20:49 -0500 From: Anders Kristensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Subject: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the "top level" Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. Thanks, Anders _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 25 01:17:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCskY-0001z9-Sw; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCskY-0001yQ-Bq for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:50 -0500 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCskX-0004Sx-2D for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:50 -0500 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 12so483074nzp for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:48 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=dtnt3kKTi1NBsGNP8iPkCIzE+RV9EfD4coA997vHNUy9UIqyqyVlm5XF1GFI2pUbWbQSvCpI4jGIb/UFwcDyevaC74CN9St6+XMLl5ehY+ELPK5OPCZYuuX2e/3w/fkcclUuQM8phemirxJXfj02YCDJjlJxodZSzLWDg+YAJR8= Received: by 10.35.99.17 with SMTP id b17mr646141pym; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.99? ( [68.165.107.76]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id q71sm1092292pyg.2006.02.24.22.17.48; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <43FF78B1.1070304@cisco.com> References: <43FF78B1.1070304@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Connelly Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:15:36 -0800 To: Anders Kristensen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I think the top level AVP is better since it is really the AVP whose value is incorrect. It is also less ambiguous in some situations. For example, if a CER message contained a Vendor-Specific-Application-Id with a bad Vendor-Id AVP, and we were to return that Vendor-Id AVP as invalid, then how would a peer know if the Failed-AVP refers to the embedded Vendor-Id or the top-level Vendor-Id AVP for the CER itself? - David On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Anders Kristensen wrote: > Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the > server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the "top > level" Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? > > Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. > > Thanks, > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 25 01:17:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCskf-0002DJ-7L; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCske-0002AE-4z for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:56 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCskc-0004T4-Ul for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:17:56 -0500 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i31so448624wra for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:54 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=lzf4+sSMCPStHyfuRvdcGPrdktPcSH90VhcN7UDZU1DM/YJz5yaZpM9Ii67KT9VolvlHpRbf+JsfI5uy02Cwb7yGU+NyOdEdeydWNYxJ1ZQnkp4/3sEBf7mXp6sUXGPq73RpqZuca2lZ/FtZFPaVY4HdNSUWpg2GS/Y+/pLpDwE= Received: by 10.35.50.9 with SMTP id c9mr717120pyk; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.99? ( [68.165.107.76]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id q71sm1092292pyg.2006.02.24.22.17.53; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <43FF78B1.1070304@cisco.com> References: <43FF78B1.1070304@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7B0D11D7-8BDF-4B21-9279-33714FA86C2A@gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Connelly Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:17:53 -0800 To: Anders Kristensen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Anders Kristensen wrote: > Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the > server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the "top > level" Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? > > Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. > > Thanks, > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 25 02:45:30 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCu7O-00063R-JG; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:45:30 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCu7N-00063M-Hq for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:45:29 -0500 Received: from mgw-ext03.nokia.com ([131.228.20.95]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCu7L-0006eQ-24 for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:45:29 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext03.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k1P7ie38020898; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:43 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:45:22 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:45:21 +0200 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 Subject: RE: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:45:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869CDC@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Thread-Index: AcY500iEL22iY01DQYCxjBVl538BWAADBF2Q From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2006 07:45:21.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E3AB7F0:01C639DF] X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I agree with David on this. The top-level AVP would be the best to return the with the error. John=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: ext David Connelly [mailto:dconnelly@gmail.com]=20 >Sent: 25 February, 2006 08:16 >To: Anders Kristensen >Cc: dime@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP > >I think the top level AVP is better since it is really the AVP=20 >whose value is incorrect. It is also less ambiguous in some=20 >situations. For example, if a CER message contained a=20 >Vendor-Specific-Application-Id with a bad Vendor-Id AVP, and=20 >we were to return that Vendor-Id AVP as invalid, then how=20 >would a peer know if the Failed-AVP refers to the embedded=20 >Vendor-Id or the top-level Vendor-Id AVP for the CER itself? > >- David > >On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Anders Kristensen wrote: > >> Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the=20 >> server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the=20 >"top level"=20 >> Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? >> >> Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. >> >> Thanks, >> Anders >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sat Feb 25 09:44:36 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FD0ex-0007ln-Q7; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FD0ew-0007kA-Te for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:34 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FD0ew-00024B-MV for dime@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:34 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2006 09:44:34 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,145,1139202000"; d="scan'208"; a="83113272:sNHT30429550" Received: from [10.86.240.175] (che-vpn-cluster-1-175.cisco.com [10.86.240.175]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1PEiXqM018347; Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <44006D4F.1090303@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 09:44:31 -0500 From: Anders Kristensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john.loughney@nokia.com Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869CDC@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869CDC@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org OK, makes sense. Probably should be made explicit in the next version of the spec. Thanks, Anders john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > I agree with David on this. The top-level AVP would be the best to > return the > with the error. > > John > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ext David Connelly [mailto:dconnelly@gmail.com] >>Sent: 25 February, 2006 08:16 >>To: Anders Kristensen >>Cc: dime@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP >> >>I think the top level AVP is better since it is really the AVP >>whose value is incorrect. It is also less ambiguous in some >>situations. For example, if a CER message contained a >>Vendor-Specific-Application-Id with a bad Vendor-Id AVP, and >>we were to return that Vendor-Id AVP as invalid, then how >>would a peer know if the Failed-AVP refers to the embedded >>Vendor-Id or the top-level Vendor-Id AVP for the CER itself? >> >>- David >> >>On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Anders Kristensen wrote: >> >> >>>Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the >>>server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the >> >>"top level" >> >>>Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? >>> >>>Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Anders >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>DiME mailing list >>>DiME@ietf.org >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>DiME mailing list >>DiME@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 27 09:14:16 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDj8i-0006Th-9H; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:14:16 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDj8g-0006TW-Jb for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:14:14 -0500 Received: from bender.tigertech.net ([64.71.157.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDj8f-0003Xi-As for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:14:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bender.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F59B1CD8363 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.25.120.204] (sj-natpool-220.cisco.com [128.107.248.220]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bender.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AD81CD82F1 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:14:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4403099E.7080009@frascone.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:15:58 -0600 From: David Frascone User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at tigertech.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on bender.tigertech.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=-999.0 required=7.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Subject: [Dime] New API Draft available X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Until it posts to ietf.org, a version can be found here: http://www.frascone.com/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-05.txt 04->05 contained mostly editorial nits. The formatting is still a little ugly . . . xml2rfc does not like API formatting :) . -Dave -- David Frascone Rotisserie: a ferris wheel for chickens _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 27 09:26:39 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDjKg-0004Qk-Hb; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:26:38 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDjKO-0004Gm-KD for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:26:20 -0500 Received: from mgw-ext03.nokia.com ([131.228.20.95]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDjKN-0003vL-6i for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:26:20 -0500 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext03.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k1REPMF6016780; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:25:24 +0200 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:07 +0200 Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:07 +0200 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 Subject: RE: [Dime] New API Draft available Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:26:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869D01@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <4403099E.7080009@frascone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] New API Draft available Thread-Index: AcY7qIaE2OrxVjtOTeqxF+6NGMIsrQAARj3w From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2006 14:26:07.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF993B00:01C63BA9] X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org David, >Until it posts to ietf.org, a version can be found here: =20 >http://www.frascone.com/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-05.txt Thanks for the update, I'd like people to review this and be prepared for a WGLC on this. >04->05 contained mostly editorial nits. The formatting is still a >little ugly . . . xml2rfc does not like API formatting :) . I guess we need an api2rfc template ... John _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 27 15:25:14 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDovi-0002iV-Gd; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDovg-0002iM-W9 for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:13 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDovf-0000UN-Pl for dime@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:12 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2006 12:25:11 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,150,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="22684296:sNHT21665268" Received: from [161.44.55.246] (dhcp-161-44-55-246.cisco.com [161.44.55.246]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1RKPBjJ027375 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <44036026.9090106@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:25:10 -0500 From: Anders Kristensen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Subject: [Dime] answer routing X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org RFC 3588 talks about request routing but AFAICT it doesn't really talk about how answer messages are routed. Given that request failover is triggered by connection failures I concluded that answers are always sent on the transport connection that the request was received on and if that connection has failed the server just doesn't send the answer. It's recommended somewhere that the server hang on the answer for a period of time in case the request is retransmitted to the same server on a new connection but the server would not send the answer on a new connection without first receiving a retransmission of the request on that connection. The other piece of supporting evidence is that answer messages do not contain Destination-Host (3588, 6.2) which I think would be a reasonable thing to expect if answers were routed in a way similar to requests. Is this the correct interpretation? Did I miss an explicit statement to this effect anywhere in the base spec? Thanks, Anders _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 28 04:47:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FE1Rv-00048b-MV; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:47:19 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FE1Rt-00044V-Kq for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:47:17 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FE1Rq-0004o3-Vd for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:47:17 -0500 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id DCC1F4F0002; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:46:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:46:47 +0100 Received: from eesmdmw020.eemea.ericsson.se ([159.107.3.34]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:46:46 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: <7457D12699374F40BD026D2B1EFFBEC60138BE66@eesmdmw020.eemea.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP Thread-Index: AcY6GgJauoD3d5RuQseVCXePjF5PxABorNOw From: "German Blanco \(E2/EEM\)" To: "Anders Kristensen" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2006 09:46:46.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3D48F90:01C63C4B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 057ebe9b96adec30a7efb2aeda4c26a4 Cc: dime@ietf.org X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hello, Wouldn't it be better to give to the peer that makes the error as much = information as possible? One way to do that would be to send the Failed-AVP with the erroneous = AVP, but inside the Grouped AVP. That is, sending a Diameter Answer = with only the Grouped AVP that failed, containing a Failed AVP with the = AVP that caused the error. I believe that for an application, it would be very interesting to know = which is the part of the information that was erroneous or missing in = the request. And since the Grouped AVP will contain more than one = information element, it would be hard to guess which is the one that = caused the problem if the answer only refers to a problem in the Grouped = AVP. You could argue that it may not be possible to include the Failed-AVP = inside the Grouped AVP, since the ABNF of the Grouped AVP could avoid = this possibility. But since this will be a revised version of Diameter, = then it could also be recommended or mandatory to allow the Failed AVP = inside Grouped AVPs. Would that be feasible? Thank you for bringing up this issue, I also think that it would be a = good idea to include it in the next RFC. German. > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Kristensen [mailto:andersk@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: s=E1bado, 25 de febrero de 2006 15:45 > To: john.loughney@nokia.com > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP >=20 > OK, makes sense. Probably should be made explicit in the next=20 > version of the spec. >=20 > Thanks, > Anders >=20 > john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: >=20 > > I agree with David on this. The top-level AVP would be the best to=20 > > return the with the error. > >=20 > > John > >=20 > >=20 > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: ext David Connelly [mailto:dconnelly@gmail.com] > >>Sent: 25 February, 2006 08:16 > >>To: Anders Kristensen > >>Cc: dime@ietf.org > >>Subject: Re: [Dime] Invalid AVP within a Grouped AVP > >> > >>I think the top level AVP is better since it is really the=20 > AVP whose=20 > >>value is incorrect. It is also less ambiguous in some=20 > situations. For=20 > >>example, if a CER message contained a=20 > Vendor-Specific-Application-Id=20 > >>with a bad Vendor-Id AVP, and we were to return that=20 > Vendor-Id AVP as=20 > >>invalid, then how would a peer know if the Failed-AVP refers to the=20 > >>embedded Vendor-Id or the top-level Vendor-Id AVP for the=20 > CER itself? > >> > >>- David > >> > >>On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Anders Kristensen wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Suppose an AVP nested within a Grouped AVP is illegal. Should the=20 > >>>server return the "most specific" illegal child AVP or the > >> > >>"top level"=20 > >> > >>>Grouped AVP containing the offending AVP? > >>> > >>>Same question for a Grouped AVP with a missing mandatory child AVP. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Anders > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>DiME mailing list > >>>DiME@ietf.org > >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>DiME mailing list > >>DiME@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >> > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime