From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Dec 1 18:30:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9520228B797; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:30:02 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091202023002.9520228B797@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:30:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:30:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Diameter Capabilities Update Application Author(s) : J. Kang, G. Zorn Filename : draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2009-12-01 This document defines a new Diameter application and associated command codes. The Capabilities Update application is intended to allow the dynamic update of Diameter peer capabilities while the peer-to-peer connection is in the open state. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-12-01181651.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Fri Dec 4 05:13:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144F73A681A for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:13:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3Z0orF8A9t5 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1120E3A6824 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 05:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so1994226bwz.29 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:13:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version:x-mailer; bh=nE6bmYlUJIUAiR1KnTE1QXoMkKeZGGDoIDJnzg4IICQ=; b=gG1k3ui7qDIadxbowglF5ed7oi9umVZJ78xl8LrnwnGsmKiKS5E+m3hyr39d1Ytcm8 rIqRujEHlPPjhu5dbE7YzOUeNLbdmYhrcPpkRrH7bxv4vuOkoKOdvvEEiYs8rYuuNKB8 VP69hXKvby9Id6bu8rXaE6YDw/63fEgrIhd7k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=T6abmlMLQWJZaChJojgo43cTBVXe3EdYCSrG3CetYJ9FSiza0oLmTvisxRI0e2dPB/ +Hl7jgRkAY5SOTKTnktU5pQNTxbyKNyHG9u3U92wPMWAgD5NST4p1akjOLy81TRvZg00 yv90GIFncOtLz1gPxZLTaUspwpaBEOf4dBqBs= Received: by 10.204.156.212 with SMTP id y20mr3234620bkw.126.1259932418703; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:13:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-114-70-210.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-70-210.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.70.210]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm3483642fks.39.2009.12.04.05.13.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:13:38 -0800 (PST) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:13:36 +0200 Message-Id: <8B283F4D-2B38-46DF-8AF2-1A2B0C6AEBD8@gmail.com> To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-02 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:13:55 -0000 Hi, I volunteered to do this review in the Hiroshima meeting. So here we go = with my initial comments. Comments are prefixed with [JiK]. 1. Introduction The usual redirect indication as described in Section 6.1.7 and Sections 6.12-6.14 of [RFC3588] returns one or more individual host names to the upstream Diameter node. However, consider the case where an operator has offered a specific service but no longer wishes to do so. The operator has arranged for an alternative domain to provide the service. To aid in the transition to the new arrangement, the original operator maintains a redirect server to indicate the alternative destination to upstream nodes. However, the original operator has no interest in configuring a list of hosts in the alternative operator's domain, and would prefer simply to provide redirect indications to the domain as a whole. [JiK] Do we actually have a real-world example of this kind of = situation? Does not need to on Diameter.. I mean an analogy to some = existing case would probably be nice. I find it surprising motivation = that the "original operator" would be too phlegmatic to fix the = situation along time.. unless someone is shipping brain dead devises = with stuff hardcoded in their firmware that cannot be remotely upgraded. Within this specification, the term "realm-based redirection" is used to refer to a mode of operation where the redirect indication specifies a realm and the upstream Diameter node reroutes the message to the realm rather than an individual host. 1.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Realm-Based Routing Application [JiK] Is it rather "Realm-Based Redirection" as used below? Because realm-based redirection is not part of base Diameter behaviour, support for realm-based redirection by the client cannot be guaranteed without advertisement at the application level. This document therefore specifies a new application, Realm-Based Routing (code TBD), for that purpose. [JiK] How is this supposed to work.. in detail? Does it mean that: 1) when a Diameter peer sees this Application-Id being advertised in = during CER/CEA, it knows that all other applications can also benefit = from realm-based redirect support, or 2) only application with a new application can benefit from realm-based = redirection? In this case you cannot define just one new application but = rather take the approach what draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing had.. and = require a new application to reference the RFC.. 3. Realm-Based Redirection This section specifies an extension to [RFC3588] to achieve realm- based routing. The elements of this solution are: [JiK] s/realm-based routing/realm-based redirection o a new result code, DIAMETER_REALM_REDIRECT_INDICATION (3011); o one new attribute-value pair (AVP), Redirect-Realm; and o associated behaviour at Diameter nodes implementing this specification. 3.1. Behaviour of Diameter Nodes 3.1.1. Behaviour at the Redirect Agent This specification modifies Section 2.7 of [RFC3588] to permit REDIRECT routing table entries to contain an alternative realm instead of individual home server identities. This specification modifies Section 6.1.7 of [RFC3588]. If the realm-based routing table for a request contains a realm rather than one or more home server identities, the redirect agent MUST set the Result-Code AVP to DIAMETER_REALM_REDIRECT_INDICATION rather than DIAMETER_REDIRECT_INDICATION. Furthermore, the redirect agent MUST insert a Redirect-Realm AVP containing the realm from the routing table entry in its answer message instead of one or more Redirect- Host AVPs. It SHOULD insert a Redirect-Max-Cache-Time AVP to indicate the scope and persistence of the redirection in upstream Diameter nodes' routing caches. To prevent confusion at Diameter nodes receiving the answer message, the Result-Code AVP MUST include the Error-Reporting-Host AVP if the host setting the Result-Code AVP [JiK] The Result-Code AVP cannot include Error-Reporting-Host AVP, = right? is different from the identity encoded in the Origin-Host AVP, in conformity with Section 7.1 of [RFC3588]. All other aspects of Section 6.1.7 remain the same as for host-based redirection. 3.1.2. Behaviour of Other Diameter Nodes A Diameter node conforming to this specification which receives an answer with the result code value DIAMETER_REALM_REDIRECT_INDICATION SHOULD attempt to reroute the request to the indicated realm using normal discovery procedures to find an appropriate destination host. The receiving Diameter node SHOULD update its cache of routing entries according to the direction provided by the Redirect-Max- Cache-Time AVP, if present. The cache entry SHOULD be associated with a redirect usage of ALL_REALM. [JiK] If the original "stale" realm was learned from DNS, then which = caching time has preference: the TTL from DNS or = Redirect-Max-Cache-Time? The caching time from the AVP can potentially = be longer than the DNS one and all this fuzz might just be because of = long TTLs with DNS response caching.. 3.2. The Redirect-Realm AVP The Redirect-Realm AVP (code TBD) is of type DiameterIdentity. It specifies a realm to which a node receiving a redirect indication containing the result code value DIAMETER_REALM_REDIRECT_INDICATION and the Redirect-Realm AVP SHOULD route the original request. The M and V flags for the Redirect-Realm AVP MUST NOT be set. [JiK] Why this restriction of 'M' flag? In Section 2 you require a new = application anyway, thus 'M' should not be an issue. Section 6.14 of [RFC3588] is modified to permit the Redirect-Max- Cache-Time AVP to be used also to specify the persistence of cache entries created by the Redirect-Realm AVP. 4. Security Considerations Because real-based redirection implies a change in business relationships, the node acting on the redirect indication SHOULD verify that the new realm is authorized to perform the requested service. Similarly the originator of the request SHOULD perform an authorization check of the path as described in Section 2.10 of [RFC3588]. 5. IANA Considerations This specification adds a new AVP code [286???] Redirect-Realm in [JiK] [286??] eh..? the AVP Code registry under Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters. This specification allocates a new Result-Code value DIAMETER_REALM_REDIRECT_INDICATION (3011) in the Result-Code AVP Values (code 268) - Protocol Errors registry under Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters. This specification defines a new Diameter application, Realm-Based Routing, in the Standards Track portion of the Diameter application identifier registry. [JiK] as mentioned in Section 2 I think the application usage needs a = bit more thought. 6. Acknowledgements Glen Zorn, Sebastien Decugis, Wolfgang Steigerwald, Mark Jones, and Victor Fajardo contributed comments that helped to shape this document. Cheers, Jouni From root@core3.amsl.com Fri Dec 4 15:30:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6139228C0EC; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091204233001.6139228C0EC@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 15:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:30:01 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Credit Control Application MIB Author(s) : G. Zorn, S. Comerica Filename : draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2009-12-04 Along with providing support for certain basic authentication, authorization and accounting functions, the Diameter base protocol is intended to provide a framework for AAA applications. This document defines the Management Information Base (MIB) module which describes the minimum set of objects needed to manage an implementation of the Diameter Credit Control application. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-12-04152648.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Dec 7 05:49:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7E13A67CF for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.416 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JwEHuw8g791c for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7123A67B1 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:13 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,355,1257138000"; d="scan'208";a="192995925" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 08:49:03 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.15]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 08:49:02 -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: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1955) Thread-Index: Acp0Hf1gJgY1nEs/Qv2DsXslX2TaxwDJdw0w From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1955) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:49:14 -0000 DIME WG, Please advice concerning this errata.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 3:39 PM To: pasi.eronen@nokia.com; tomhiller@lucent.com; gwz@cisco.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); rbonica@juniper.net; Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; david@mitton.com; john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: gwz@net-zen.net; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1955) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4072, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D4072&eid=3D1955 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Glen Zorn Section: 4.1.4 Original Text ------------- Note that not all link layers use this name, and currently most EAP methods do not generate it. Since the NAS operates in pass-through mode, it cannot know the Key-Name before receiving it from the AAA server. As a result, a Key-Name AVP sent in a Diameter-EAP-Request MUST NOT contain any data. A home Diameter server receiving a Diameter-EAP-Request with a Key-Name AVP with non-empty data MUST silently discard the AVP. =20 Corrected Text -------------- Note that not all link layers use this name, and currently most EAP methods do not generate it. Since the NAS operates in pass-through mode, it cannot know the name of the key before receiving it from the AAA server. As a result, an EAP-Key-Name AVP sent in a Diameter-EAP-Request MUST NOT contain any data. A home Diameter server receiving a Diameter-EAP-Request containing an EAP-Key-Name AVP with non-empty data MUST silently ignore the AVP. =20 Notes ----- In the original text, the first occurrence of the string "Key-Name" apparently is meant to refer to the actual name of the key, rather than an AVP identifier, while the next two occurrences are obviously typos, since no Key-Name AVP is defined in the document. Also, the term "silently discard" is typically used in reference to messages; with reference to a single AVP, "silently ignore" seems more appropriate. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 -------------------------------------- RFC4072 (draft-ietf-aaa-eap-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application Publication Date : August 2005 Author(s) : P. Eronen, Ed., T. Hiller, G. Zorn Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From dromasca@avaya.com Mon Dec 7 05:49:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BD93A67B1 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id my+Jv6INrTqk for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD533A67B5 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:49:14 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,355,1257138000"; d="scan'208";a="192995928" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 08:49:03 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.15]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 08:49:03 -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: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:48:58 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1956) Thread-Index: Acp0JOV3HhzGjBTvSbGltvyD7gBc5QDHxzUg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1956) X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:49:15 -0000 DIME WG, Please advice concerning this errata.=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]=20 Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 4:27 PM To: pasi.eronen@nokia.com; tomhiller@lucent.com; gwz@cisco.com; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); rbonica@juniper.net; Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; david@mitton.com; john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: gwz@net-zen.net; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC4072 (1956) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC4072, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D4072&eid=3D1956 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Glen Zorn Section: 4.1.4 Original Text ------------- In addition, the home Diameter server SHOULD include this AVP in Diameter-EAP-Response only if an empty EAP-Key-Name AVP was present in Diameter-EAP-Request. Corrected Text -------------- In addition, the home Diameter server SHOULD include this AVP in the Diameter-EAP-Answer message only if an empty EAP-Key-Name AVP was present in the corresponding Diameter-EAP-Request. Notes ----- There's no such thing as a "Diameter-EAP-Response" message; the rephrasing is for purposes of clarification. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 -------------------------------------- RFC4072 (draft-ietf-aaa-eap-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application Publication Date : August 2005 Author(s) : P. Eronen, Ed., T. Hiller, G. Zorn Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From gwz@net-zen.net Mon Dec 7 15:23:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F71C3A69D6 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:23:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.156, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IhmiVHb+pAq6 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.89]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A1723A69B6 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4856 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2009 23:23:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by p3plsmtpa01-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.89) with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2009 23:23:30 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:23:07 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <00b501ca7794$3c853b30$b58fb190$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp3bm11Qi44Q5ceRUalrzJ4z4S0OQAJbDMQ Content-Language: en-us Subject: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:23:42 -0000 FYI; we believe that all open issues have been resolved. -----Original Message----- From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org]=20 Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 10:53 AM To: gwz@net-zen.net Cc: Sunseawq@huawei.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03=20 A new version of I-D, draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03.txt has been = successfuly submitted by Glen Zorn and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran Revision: 03 Title: Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport Creation_date: 2009-12-04 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 8 Abstract: Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications require the transport of cryptographic keying material; this document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. = =20 The IETF Secretariat. From fqhuang@huawei.com Mon Dec 7 22:53:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBBB3A693D for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.804 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kJxKTDzB4TlR for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18D728C0FD for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 22:53:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUB00K28N4DOS@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:53:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUB005X3N4DAK@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:53:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from h36145c ([10.70.39.64]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUB0022ZN4DAY@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:53:01 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:53:01 +0800 From: Fortune HUANG To: dime@ietf.org Message-id: <002c01ca77d3$15666f80$4027460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_e5pX6wJw0PKNsh/8h8mn1Q)" Thread-index: Acp30xU9qlJo36+fSKealoDVhekQZw== Subject: [Dime] A tiny bug in Command Code ABNF specification in rfc3588bis-19 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:53:26 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_e5pX6wJw0PKNsh/8h8mn1Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear all, I think there is a tiny bug in the Command Code ABNF specification in rfc3588bis-19. Here is how the Diameter header is defined: header = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [application-id] ">" application-id = 1*DIGIT command-id = 1*DIGIT ; The Command Code assigned to the command r-bit = ", REQ" ; If present, the 'R' bit in the Command ; Flags is set, indicating that the message ; is a request, as opposed to an answer. p-bit = ", PXY" ; If present, the 'P' bit in the Command ; Flags is set, indicating that the message ; is proxiable. e-bit = ", ERR" ; If present, the 'E' bit in the Command ; Flags is set, indicating that the answer ; message contains a Result-Code AVP in ; the "protocol error" class. According to this specification, there is no separator (e.g. a comma) between the application-id and its previous field. So here are the legal examples which do not look good: 1) header = 2) header = In the latter example, we can't even figure out the values of the command code and the application-id. There might be three potential solutions to fix the bug (any of them will be OK for me): 1) simply adding ", " before application-id as follows: header = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [", " application-id] ">" 2) redefine application-id with a comma as follows: application-id = ", " 1*DIGIT 3) create a new name for application-id plus the comma as follows: header = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [a-new-name-x] ">" a-new-name-x = ", " application-id Best regards, Fortune --Boundary_(ID_e5pX6wJw0PKNsh/8h8mn1Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Dear all,
 
I think there is a tiny bug in the Command Code ABNF specification in rfc3588bis-19.
 
Here is how the Diameter header is defined:
 
  header           = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id
                     [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [application-id] ">"
 
  application-id   = 1*DIGIT
 
  command-id       = 1*DIGIT
                     ; The Command Code assigned to the command
  r-bit            = ", REQ"
                     ; If present, the 'R' bit in the Command
                     ; Flags is set, indicating that the message
                     ; is a request, as opposed to an answer.

  p-bit            = ", PXY"
                     ; If present, the 'P' bit in the Command
                     ; Flags is set, indicating that the message
                     ; is proxiable.

  e-bit            = ", ERR"
                     ; If present, the 'E' bit in the Command
                     ; Flags is set, indicating that the answer
                     ; message contains a Result-Code AVP in
                     ; the "protocol error" class.
According to this specification, there is no separator (e.g. a comma) between the application-id and its previous field.
So here are the legal examples which do not look good:
1) header = <Diameter Header:555, REQ1111111>
2) header = <Diameter Header:5551111111>
In the latter example, we can't even figure out the values of the command code and the application-id.
 
There might be three potential solutions to fix the bug (any of them will be OK for me):
1) simply adding ", " before application-id as follows:
     header           = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id
                     [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [", " application-id] ">"
 
2) redefine application-id with a comma as follows:
       application-id   = ", " 1*DIGIT
3) create a new name for application-id plus the comma as follows:
header           = "<" "Diameter Header:" command-id
                     [r-bit] [p-bit] [e-bit] [a-new-name-x] ">"
a-new-name-x = ", " application-id
 
 
Best regards,
Fortune
 
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_e5pX6wJw0PKNsh/8h8mn1Q)-- From sdecugis@nict.go.jp Tue Dec 8 00:17:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839C13A6883 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:17:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.134 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5WzjfTmd2h8s for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:17:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.nict.go.jp (ns1.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063623A68A8 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (gw1 [133.243.18.250]) by ns1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB88HcAS007260 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB88Hcoe015243 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB88HcVP015240 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 1BFD916911 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.206] (5gou2f-dhcp46.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.206]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 14ACB1690F for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:17:38 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4B1E0B9C.3080906@nict.go.jp> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:17:32 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Dime] Clarification: ABNF for error messages ? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:17:52 -0000 Hello all, RFC3588 section 7.2 (and still in bis document) requires an answer message to conform to its ABNF, unless the E bit is set, in which case the ABNF may be different. I would like to point that this requirement cannot always be satisfied, for example when the Result-Code is being set to DIAMETER_COMMAND_UNSUPPORTED in which case the local peer does not know anything about the ABNF. I am wondering if the correct behavior would be to set the E bit for this Result-Code value (in which case a relay would try to send it to an alternate peer) or assume that the ABNF has to be checked only in case of Success (2xxx) and Informational (1xxx) Result-Code values ? Does someone have any comment on this ? Thank you in advance. Best regards, Sebastien. -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Dec 8 00:27:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF7F3A67A6 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:27:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8sfzQn68uaS for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048C63A6809 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 00:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so5933723fxm.28 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:27:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=a7NvfbHGckkiqRDEkZwb8G7GkfRmTq37eNvgIwQUq4c=; b=ho2ti8iksnaiJBPoMbQu+lLRkU50rtc9wOoxE5nhTms41vlVuPoz3cWBGg6iCOC30U beVABhMtJy/COIJTfQTAOR2ZxLjeCa26KDZ3uhoB6jdg3wpjZ+Khl9iNK+tXQNTNMHVg /myasxda5BHgpRZC7nNL7jJVEbHAG47eM+KZQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=gg6BWMJhujzLMD/5JlwjuG4e+uLvGVDrdBVyEMSk4YQ/34DGC1it8n8G3owSMjKXcG uJsn+1WYIizrT5q1wC03y0N4FojI40z053MNDIFKWzI7pv+wUUY1o5p12E61409+63Il +sNj0gD7BQi124NuiAkzzvp4Q/vAxJUk1ISwk= Received: by 10.86.249.26 with SMTP id w26mr6792880fgh.49.1260260865596; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-114-169-62.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-169-62.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.169.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm19815039fga.27.2009.12.08.00.27.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:27:44 -0800 (PST) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 10:27:43 +0200 Message-Id: To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Subject: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:28:00 -0000 Hi, Reading the Section 11.6 NAPTR Service Fields. It appears to me that = there is no IANA registry defined for these NAPTR service and protocol = fields. Not in RFC3588 and not for NAPTR in general (meaning RFC2915 and = RFC3403). Therefore, shouldn't this document create one as hinted in = Section 9 of RFC3403? Cheers, Jouni= From Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com Tue Dec 8 06:03:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79753A67A7 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAteah4XL5sf for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail51.messagelabs.com (mail51.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB763A63D3 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:03 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-51.messagelabs.com!1260280972!29742733!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119] Received: (qmail 3079 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2009 14:02:52 -0000 Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-8.tower-51.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Dec 2009 14:02:52 -0000 Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:02:52 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: "dime@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:02:17 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations Thread-Index: Acp34FZBOc20YK6hR4qJzLhYyLl5vQALWCYw Message-ID: <4E0F60BAF2FA7C46BBB5474DF8A89BCD2DD48A12E3@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-19 and IANA considerations X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:03:05 -0000 > Reading the Section 11.6 NAPTR Service Fields. It appears to me that > there is no IANA registry defined for these NAPTR service and protocol > fields. Not in RFC3588 and not for NAPTR in general (meaning RFC2915 > and RFC3403). Therefore, shouldn't this document create one as hinted > in Section 9 of RFC3403? >=20 3588bis did not change this section so it appears this is an IANA action th= at was missed from 3588. Can't we request that IANA add the registry now? I see no reason to wait fo= r 3588bis if it contains no changes to the requested NAPTR registry. =09 Regards Mark From gwz@net-zen.net Tue Dec 8 12:09:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A063A6A31 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:09:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.221, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ko42lROmD5iE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 533D03A68D0 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 26417 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2009 20:08:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by smtpauth19.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.30) with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2009 20:08:54 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:08:27 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp4QjSE+lbOX6vNRRK/PF1hHS4rpQ== Content-Language: en-us Subject: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:09:06 -0000 FYI, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03.txt has been posted; we think that all outstanding comments have been addressed. From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Tue Dec 8 14:31:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA4728C0FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:31:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K7P9Z0yOMvZO for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:31:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B83D3A6999 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:31:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so6822046fxm.28 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:cc:to :mime-version:x-mailer; bh=dZA8Xw1OLg2VA0Rf5b/aPM2HREBq/ySKf5BVa2ZX5oY=; b=Ecp57rFdY6W5rJdem+u5hD7voJMasVtba065Arwk1dPlbkeaDuLftRJwlbQVR6LMvt XvzMpgp0X9edbi0r0sOjUbage58QB0IOmPcvjtXJxZ7LhJGyVkbNLM5MMn3BCTG2K6Pg w8LKynGUphXNHPXd/h7T1vrP0e3GSF+/riq8Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; b=UTndBKmzBposOmIBDbAZb7pa3frpTM5xYTGGbLaCE4VjOFuqT1aRZllCCPrezTWAJy Ip4lNyTW+zI9CHJW5FwKITbp4KemKTs2XVKVWIxP3R1O7wYR3kCXQY5aC/fmC2PBcgnv zjmHQZatDnfywF9+CVNdpW8UtGl4aPkEyxOKQ= Received: by 10.86.235.29 with SMTP id i29mr7765147fgh.57.1260311490024; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:31:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from a83-245-213-231.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a83-245-213-231.elisa-laajakaista.fi [83.245.213.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm21535256fgb.15.2009.12.08.14.31.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:31:29 -0800 (PST) From: jouni korhonen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 00:31:26 +0200 Message-Id: <525ECBEE-A11B-41B9-BAAC-E1D7C72F1B58@gmail.com> To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: vaneeta@mavenir.com Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:31:45 -0000 Hi, In Hiroshima I volunteered to review this I-D. I would say the I-D is in = rather good shape and my comments are not too technical. See my initial = comments inline (after the first read of this draft). Comments are = prefixed with [JiK]. ----- In Section 4.1. The current version of the draft assumes that the NAT control requesting entity is always the DNCA manager. Sessions will always be initiated, updated, or terminated by the DNCA manager. This mode of operation is sometimes also referred to as "push mode". Session initiation by the DNCA agent (sometimes referred to as "pull mode") will be covered in a future version of this draft. [JiK] How is the push mode supposed to work when the manager is located = in the AAA server? What trigger the AAA to send a NCR request to a LSN? return a NCA with Result-Code set to Insufficient- Classifiers. [JiK] extra space above.. and probably the Insufficient-Classifiers = should be in uppercase like the other result codes in this draft are. In Section 4.3 (and through out the draft): [JiK] In general, when discussing of AVPs in the text, for example: o In case Max-NAT-Binding and Nat-Control-Definition are included in the NCR along with a reference to a binding rule (i.e. a ... I would actually add the "AVP" acronym after the appropriate AVP has = been mentioned: o In case Max-NAT-Binding and Nat-Control-Definition AVPs are = included in the NCR along with a reference to a binding rule (i.e. a ... In Section 4.5. and onwards [JiK] .,$s/TERMINATE REQUEST/TERMINATE_REQUEST/g [JiK] s/Terminate REQUEST/TERMINATE_REQUEST In Section 4.6. Disclaimer: This version of the draft does not cover details in case DNCA manager and DNCA agent go out of sync, which could happen for example due to DNCA manager or DNCA agent restart, (temporary) loss of network connectivity etc. Future versions of this draft will cover failure cases and corresponding behavior of DNCA manager and DNCA agent in detail. [JiK] Will there be a future version of this draft that covers this = case? o The DNCA manager is unreachable (as e.g. detected by Diameter watchdog) or down and accounting requests from the DNCA agent fail to get a response. The current version of the draft does not specify procedures for DNCA agent session state clean up or recovery. The mechanism to ensure that a DNCA manager no longer has associated state for a session being cleared at the DNCA agent is beyond the scope of this document. [JiK] Same comment as above.. In Section 5.1. [JiK] s/IPSec may be used/IPSec MAY be used [JiK] s/The DNCA agent may verify/The DNCA agent MAY verify In Section 5.4. It is assumed that the DNCA manager knows the address/name of the DNCA agent for a given endpoint. Both the Destination-Realm and ... [JiK] I would rather say "knows the DiameterIdentity and the realm of = the.." In Section 6.2. (NCA) [JiK] Is redirection supported? In Section 7.3. [JiK] How and what goes into Called/Calling-Station-Id ? I would not = mind saying more specifically what identifier goes there and using what = encoding. In Section 7.7.* [JiK] Have you thought of reusing the Classifier AVPs from = draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes e.g. within the NAT-Internal-Address and = NAT-Control-Definition grouped AVPs? Or is the reference in Section 7.5 = just wrong? In Section 7.7.5. NAT-Internal-Address ::=3D < AVP Header: TBD > [ Framed-IP-Address ] [ Port] [ AVP ] [JiK] s/[ AVP ]/* [ AVP ] In Section 7.7.6. [JiK] Same as above. In Section 8. [JiK] Which application id is used for accounting? Is Section 13.1. [JiK] I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes is not referenced. I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters is not referenced. TS32299 is not referenced (and is rather old version as well, = latest being 9.1.0 from Oct 2009) =20 Cheers, Jouni From sdecugis@nict.go.jp Tue Dec 8 18:07:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128243A6AA8 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:07:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.008 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_SOMA2=2.199, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZD90Ja-H3n9w for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDFB3A6AA6 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:07:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB9274oX019588; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB9274wl006160; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB9273GP006157; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:07:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id E4C8116AC3; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:07:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.206] (5gou2f-dhcp46.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.206]) by mail2.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id CA5B116A97; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:07:03 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:06:58 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn , "dime@ietf.org" References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> In-Reply-To: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:07:19 -0000 Hi Glen, Qin, all, By quickly looking into the new version, a few additional comments came to my mind: In section 3.1, I would like to propose a change to the ABNF. I think the Key-Type AVP should be in a fixed position (actually I was under the impression that this was already decided, but anyway), like this: Key ::= < AVP Header: AC1 > < Key-Type > ... In section 3.1.1 (definition of Key-Type AVP), I think some of the defined values should be removed, as follow: - rMSK (4) : As I understand, there is no difference between rMSK and MSK, so we may not need a different type for this one ? (not sure) - USRK (2) & DSUSRK (5): RFC5295 defines a generic algorithm to derive usage-specific keys. The definition alone is not sufficient to create keying material: we need the usage itself to define the missing parts. Therefore, having a "USRK" or "DSUSRK" container is pointless, it does not allow the recipient to understand what is in the key. On the other hand, rRK and rDSRK make sense, since ERP defines completely the algorithm (they are instances of USRK and DSUSRK). Anyway, I guess it would make more sense that the rRK and rDSRK values are assigned in the registry by Diameter ERP document, if needed. But this is not very important. As a summary, I believe an initial version the document should only define MSK and DSRK Key-Type values. I section 4, maybe a bit of explanation about the Key-Type and Key-Name AVPs inside DER / DEA would be useful. From the remaining of the document, I had only guessed that the Key AVP could be present in DEA, and nothing about the other ones. I believe the "Security Considerations" section should also reference RFC5295's security section, especially Section 7.4 (Key Distribution), and mention that Diameter honors these security requirements. It should also mention that different key usages may have stronger security requirements, that must be carefully considered before using the mechanism defined in this document. That's all I have for the moment :) Sorry for the long mail! Best regards, Sebastien. Glen Zorn a écrit : > FYI, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-03.txt has been > posted; we think that all outstanding comments have been addressed. > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) From sdecugis@nict.go.jp Tue Dec 8 18:14:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6EA3A6AB2 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.125 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.231, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7gQOQZ0G1cD for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50AC3A6AB1 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92Dq2r020669; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92DqXA009167; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB92DqeT009164; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail3.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 0DFB716976; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.206] (5gou2f-dhcp46.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.206]) by mail3.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 08C311696D; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:13:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4B1F07DB.5090604@nict.go.jp> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:13:47 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn , "dime@ietf.org" References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> In-Reply-To: <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:14:06 -0000 Hi again, sorry for replying to myself! > I believe the "Security Considerations" section should also reference > RFC5295's security section, especially Section 7.4 (Key Distribution), > and mention that Diameter honors these security requirements. Security considerations from draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13 are also important to mention IMHO. Best regards, Sebastien. -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) From gwz@net-zen.net Tue Dec 8 19:21:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F5B3A69D3 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:21:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.093, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EnTdIw7Usy6C for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 188973A6956 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:20:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 18080 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2009 03:20:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by p3plsmtpa01-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.83) with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2009 03:20:47 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Sebastien Decugis'" References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> In-Reply-To: <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:20:19 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <009a01ca787e$89fb4a40$9df1dec0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp4dFDDkR7LDecJQXCTjVmQ6HjtDQACb6BQ Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:21:00 -0000 Sebastien Decugis [mailto:sdecugis@nict.go.jp] writes: > Hi Glen, Qin, all, > > By quickly looking into the new version, a few additional comments came > to my mind: > > In section 3.1, I would like to propose a change to the ABNF. I think > the Key-Type AVP should be in a fixed position (actually I was under the > impression that this was already decided, but anyway), like this: > > Key ::= < AVP Header: AC1 > > < Key-Type > > ... > > > In section 3.1.1 (definition of Key-Type AVP), I think some of the > defined values should be removed, as follow: > - rMSK (4) : As I understand, there is no difference between rMSK and > MSK, so we may not need a different type for this one ? (not sure) How would you deliver an MSK and rMSK in the same message, then? ... From sunseawq@huawei.com Tue Dec 8 19:41:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A497F3A69D6 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:41:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LP1xzS37PBfF for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A322B3A69D3 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUD00GPP8WOWK@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:12 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUD007CB8WO3T@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:12 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.66]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUD00GG28WNVB@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:12 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:11 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Sebastien Decugis , Glen Zorn , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <02a301ca7881$73bf1f60$420ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_31d2neGjo2g/mo3SckYtlA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:41:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_31d2neGjo2g/mo3SckYtlA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi, Sebastien: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastien Decugis" To: "Glen Zorn" ; Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran Hi Glen, Qin, all, By quickly looking into the new version, a few additional comments came to my mind: In section 3.1, I would like to propose a change to the ABNF. I think the Key-Type AVP should be in a fixed position (actually I was under the impression that this was already decided, but anyway), like this: Key ::= < AVP Header: AC1 > < Key-Type > ... In section 3.1.1 (definition of Key-Type AVP), I think some of the defined values should be removed, as follow: - rMSK (4) : As I understand, there is no difference between rMSK and MSK, so we may not need a different type for this one ? (not sure) - USRK (2) & DSUSRK (5): RFC5295 defines a generic algorithm to derive usage-specific keys. The definition alone is not sufficient to create keying material: we need the usage itself to define the missing parts. [Qin]: The usages for USRK and DSUSRK have been defined in the section 4.2 of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13. That is to say, USRK and DSUSRK may be derived in the EAP/AAA server and transported in the message to the same USR-KH. And then DSUSRK can be further transported from USR-KH to DSUSR-KH. --Boundary_(ID_31d2neGjo2g/mo3SckYtlA) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi, Sebastien:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastien Decugis" <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
To: "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net>; <dime@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

Hi Glen, Qin, all,

By quickly looking into the new version, a few additional comments came
to my mind:

In section 3.1, I would like to propose a change to the ABNF. I think
the Key-Type AVP should be in a fixed position (actually I was under the
impression that this was already decided, but anyway), like this:

   Key ::= < AVP Header: AC1 >
             < Key-Type >
             ...


In section 3.1.1 (definition of Key-Type AVP), I think some of the
defined values should be removed, as follow:
- rMSK (4) : As I understand, there is no difference between rMSK and
MSK, so we may not need a different type for this one ? (not sure)
- USRK (2) & DSUSRK (5): RFC5295 defines a generic algorithm to derive
usage-specific keys. The definition alone is not sufficient to create
keying material: we need the usage itself to define the missing parts.
 
[Qin]: The usages for USRK and DSUSRK have been defined in the section 4.2 of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13.
That is to say, USRK and DSUSRK may be derived in the EAP/AAA server and transported in the message to the same USR-KH.
And then DSUSRK can be further transported from USR-KH to DSUSR-KH.
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_31d2neGjo2g/mo3SckYtlA)-- From sdecugis@nict.go.jp Tue Dec 8 20:40:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458383A6906 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:40:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.33 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mNAnW3Wq0-7z for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:40:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:2f8:29::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AE63A67F1 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:40:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB94e6lB007650; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:40:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB94e6J1004012; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:40:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id nB94e6GK004009; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:40:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 5931A16AFC; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:40:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.206] (5gou2f-dhcp46.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.206]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail) with ESMTP id 547E616AFA; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:40:06 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4B1F2A20.9060407@nict.go.jp> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:40:00 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qin Wu References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> <02a301ca7881$73bf1f60$420ca40a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <02a301ca7881$73bf1f60$420ca40a@china.huawei.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:40:48 -0000 Hi Qin, > - USRK (2) & DSUSRK (5): RFC5295 defines a generic algorithm to derive > usage-specific keys. The definition alone is not sufficient to create > keying material: we need the usage itself to define the missing parts. > [Qin]: The usages for USRK and DSUSRK have been defined in the section > 4.2 of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13. > That is to say, USRK and DSUSRK may be derived in the EAP/AAA server > and transported in the message to the same USR-KH. > And then DSUSRK can be further transported from USR-KH to DSUSR-KH. Sorry, I have difficulties to express my idea clearly. What I mean is that for example the definition of USRK is just a generic method to derive a class of keys, we will never have a "USRK key" without any precision on the usage it-self (usage as in the "US" part of USRK). On the other hand, rRK is an instance of this class, where the algorithm parameters are specified in the ERP document, and we can effectively have to transport rRK keys. As I understand draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13, that document is also talking about generic mechanisms, that can be applied for instance to the ERP specific usage. Does this make my point more understandable? Best regards, Sebastien. -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) From sunseawq@huawei.com Tue Dec 8 22:49:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56B03A6879 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:49:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.243 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.356, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aKzVLnLBoMZM for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4C43A67A2 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:49:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUD00LHSHM674@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:49:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUD00JSYHM6CD@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:49:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.66]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUD007I8HM6OL@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:49:18 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:49:18 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Sebastien Decugis Message-id: <030901ca789b$bb071cf0$420ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <01ce01ca7842$352c49b0$9f84dd10$@net> <4B1F0642.2090604@nict.go.jp> <02a301ca7881$73bf1f60$420ca40a@china.huawei.com> <4B1F2A20.9060407@nict.go.jp> Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:49:34 -0000 Hi,Sebastien: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastien Decugis" To: "Qin Wu" Cc: "Glen Zorn" ; Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [Dime] New version of draft-wu-dime-local-keytran > Hi Qin, > >> - USRK (2) & DSUSRK (5): RFC5295 defines a generic algorithm to derive >> usage-specific keys. The definition alone is not sufficient to create >> keying material: we need the usage itself to define the missing parts. >> [Qin]: The usages for USRK and DSUSRK have been defined in the section >> 4.2 of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13. >> That is to say, USRK and DSUSRK may be derived in the EAP/AAA server >> and transported in the message to the same USR-KH. >> And then DSUSRK can be further transported from USR-KH to DSUSR-KH. > Sorry, I have difficulties to express my idea clearly. What I mean is > that for example the definition of USRK is just a generic method to > derive a class of keys, we will never have a "USRK key" without any > precision on the usage it-self (usage as in the "US" part of USRK). On > the other hand, rRK is an instance of this class, where the algorithm > parameters are specified in the ERP document, and we can effectively > have to transport rRK keys. As I understand draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13, > that document is also talking about generic mechanisms, that can be > applied for instance to the ERP specific usage. [Qin]: According to draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-13, USRK and DSUSRK can be used in Key Distribution Exchange Scenarios, that is to say EAP based key transportation is not limited for ERP specific usage. Also I am not saying using of USRK and DSUSRK in the ERP scenario. I am wondering whether USRK and DSUSRK transportation can be used for other non ERP specific cases like Key Distribution Exchange Scenarios. > Does this make my point more understandable? > > Best regards, > Sebastien. > > -- > Sebastien Decugis > Research fellow > Network Architecture Group > NICT (nict.go.jp) > From vfajardo@research.telcordia.com Mon Dec 14 08:06:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1EC28C11C; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:06:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.391 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.208, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FHC7GL5p21KW; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977E63A6A19; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:06:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from fajardov1 (vpntnlB33.research.telcordia.com [128.96.59.33]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nBEG5m16027612; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:05:48 -0500 (EST) From: "Victor Fajardo" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:05:48 -0500 Organization: Applied Research, Telcordia Technologies Message-ID: <000001ca7cd7$4d6b7020$e8425060$@telcordia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01CA7CAD.64956820" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp810yQ9v4heTvaTs2E2IniWZGQXA== Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-03.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: vfajardo@research.telcordia.com List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:06:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CA7CAD.64956820 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-03.txt =================================================================== http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-03.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo (vf0213@gmail.com). I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document defines the MIB module for the Diameter base protocol. It contains the minimum set of objects needed to manage a Diameter entity. These definitions are based on an implementation of Diameter and therefore gone through a good level of sanity checks. It has also been reviewed by members of the WG. The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? There are no concerns with this document. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus in the WG behind the document. The document is an essential/required part of the Diameter base protocol deployment and so the problem space address by the doc is well understood. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has been split into normative and informative references. There are no normative references that are work in progress or downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with the body. The document only request allocations of new OID under MIB-2. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document contains MIB definitions. They have been validated and all definitions follow mib-2 syntax. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document specifies the minimum required set of MIB objects necessary to manage a Diameter node using SNMP. The document specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In particular it describes the MIB objects used for managing the Diameter base protocol (RFC3588). Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by members of the DIME WG for its sanity in terms of the tunable objects and variables necessary for managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed by external folks who have vested interest in having a MIB module standardized. Additionally, the document has been passed through automated MIB checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and structure. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CA7CAD.64956820 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

PROTO WRITEUP for = draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mib-03.txt

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-base-protocol-mi= b-03.txt

 

 

   (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the

          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of = the

          document and, in particular, does he or she believe = this

          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for = publication?

 

The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo (vf0213@gmail.com). I have personally reviewed the

document and I believe it is ready for = publication.

 

   (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members

          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd = have

          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews = that

          have been performed?

 

This document defines the MIB module for the Diameter base protocol.

It contains the minimum set of objects needed = to manage a Diameter

entity. These definitions are based on an implementation of Diameter

and therefore gone through a good level of = sanity checks. It has also been

reviewed by members of the WG. The document = shepherd has no concerns

about the depth of the = reviews.

 

   (1.c)  Does the Document = Shepherd have concerns that the document

          needs more review from a particular or broader = perspective,

          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar = with

          AAA, internationalization, or XML?

 

There are no concerns with this = document.

 

   (1.d)  Does the Document = Shepherd have any specific concerns or

          issues with this document that the Responsible Area = Director

          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps = he

          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, = or

          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In = any

          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has = indicated

          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail = those

          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this = document

          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to = the

          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion = on

          this issue.

 

There are no concerns with this document. =

 

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it

          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, = with

          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand = and

          agree with it?

 

There is consensus in the WG behind the = document. The document is an

essential/required part of the Diameter base protocol deployment and

so the problem space address by the doc is = well understood.

 

   (1.f)  Has anyone = threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme

          discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict = in

          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  = (It

          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire = is

          entered into the ID Tracker.)

 

There is no opposition to this = document.

 

   (1.g)  Has the Document = Shepherd personally verified that the

          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See

          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and

          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks = are

          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the = document

          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the = MIB

          Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the = document

          does not already indicate its intended status at the top = of

          the first page, please indicate the intended status = here.

 

The document does not contain = nits.

 

   (1.h)  Has the document = split its references into normative and

          informative?  Are there normative references to documents = that

   =        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an = unclear

          state?  If such normative references exist, what is = the

          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative = references

          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  = If

          so, list these downward references to support the = Area

          Director in the Last Call procedure for them = [RFC3967].

 

The document has been split into normative = and informative references.

There are no normative references that are = work in progress or downward

references.

 

   (1.i)  Has the Document = Shepherd verified that the document's IANA

          Considerations section exists and is consistent with the = body

          of the document?  If the document specifies = protocol

          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate = IANA

          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  = If

          the document creates a new registry, does it define = the

          proposed initial contents of the registry and an = allocation

          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest = a

          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If = the

          document describes an Expert Review process, has the = Document

          Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so = that

          the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG = Evaluation?

 

The document has an IANA considerations = section that is consistent with the body.

The document only request allocations of new = OID under MIB-2.

 

   (1.j)  Has the Document = Shepherd verified that sections of the

          document that are written in a formal language, such as = XML

          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly = in

          an automated checker?

 

The document contains MIB definitions. They = have been validated and all definitions

follow mib-2 syntax.

 

   (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a = Document

          Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in = the

          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The = approval

          announcement contains the following sections:

 

   Technical = Summary

 

     The document = specifies the minimum required set of MIB objects

     necessary to manage = a Diameter node using SNMP. The document

     specifies a MIB = module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In

     particular it = describes the MIB objects used for managing

     the Diameter base = protocol (RFC3588).

 

   Working Group = Summary

 

     There was consensus = in the WG to publish the document.

 

   Document = Quality

 

     The document has = been reviewed by members of the DIME WG

     for its sanity in = terms of the tunable objects and variables

     necessary for = managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed

     by external folks = who have vested interest in having a MIB module

     standardized. = Additionally, the document has been passed through

     automated MIB = checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and

     = structure.

 

   Personnel

 

     Victor Fajardo is = the document shepherd for this document.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01CA7CAD.64956820-- From vfajardo@research.telcordia.com Mon Dec 14 08:16:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688D83A6A15; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:16:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.603, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25NHfXd+IfVw; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:16:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303E13A6A19; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:16:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from fajardov1 (vpntnlB33.research.telcordia.com [128.96.59.33]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nBEGFpbK002096; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:15:51 -0500 (EST) From: "Victor Fajardo" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:15:51 -0500 Organization: Applied Research, Telcordia Technologies Message-ID: <000501ca7cd8$b54cf460$1fe6dd20$@telcordia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01CA7CAE.CC76EC60" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp82LRX0uKKmW4mSsy5FknKr/nx4A== Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: vfajardo@research.telcordia.com List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:16:10 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CA7CAE.CC76EC60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt ============================================================= http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo (vf0213@gmail.com). I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document defines the MIB module for the Diameter Credit Control Application. It contains the minimum set of objects needed to manage a Diameter CC application entity. These definitions are based on an implementation of Diameter CC and therefore gone through a good level of sanity checks. It has also been reviewed by members of the WG. The document shepherd has no concerns about the depth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? There are no concerns with this document. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus in the WG behind the document. The document is an essential/required part of the Diameter CC deployment and so the problem space address by the doc is well understood. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has been split into normative and informative references. There are no normative refereces that are work in progress or downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with the body. The document only request allocations of new OID under MIB-2. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document contains MIB definitions. They have been validated and all definitions follow mib-2 syntax. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document specifies the minimum required set of MIB objects necessary to manage a Diameter CC application using SNMP. The document specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In particular it descirbes the MIB objects used for managing the Diameter CC application (RFC4006). Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by members of the DIME WG for its sanity in terms of the tunable objects and variables necessary for managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed by external folks who have vested interest in having a MIB module standardized. Additionally, the document has been passed through automated MIB checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and structure. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CA7CAE.CC76EC60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib-02.txt<= o:p>

 

 

   (1.a)  Who is the Document = Shepherd for this document?  Has the

          Document = Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the

          document = and, in particular, does he or she believe this

          version is = ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

 

The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo (vf0213@gmail.com). I have personally reviewed the

document and I believe it is ready for = publication.

 

   (1.b)  Has the document had = adequate review both from key WG members

          and from = key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have

          any = concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that

          have been = performed?

 

This document defines the MIB module for the Diameter Credit Control Application.

It contains the minimum set of objects needed = to manage a Diameter CC

application entity. These definitions are = based on an implementation of Diameter CC

and therefore gone through a good level of = sanity checks. It has also been

reviewed by members of the WG. The document = shepherd has no concerns

about the depth of the = reviews.

 

   (1.c)  Does the Document = Shepherd have concerns that the document

          needs more = review from a particular or broader perspective,

          e.g., = security, operational complexity, someone familiar with

          AAA, = internationalization, or XML?

 

There are no concerns with this = document.

 

   (1.d)  Does the Document = Shepherd have any specific concerns or

          issues with = this document that the Responsible Area Director

          and/or the = IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he

          or she is = uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or

          has = concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any

          event, if = the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated

          that it = still wishes to advance the document, detail those

          concerns = here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document

          been = filed?  If so, please include a reference to the

          disclosure = and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on

          this = issue.

 

There are no concerns with this document. =

 

   (1.e)  How solid is the WG = consensus behind this document?  Does it

          represent = the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with

          others = being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and

          agree with = it?

 

There is consensus in the WG behind the = document. The document is an

essential/required part of the Diameter CC deployment and  so the problem

space address by the doc is well = understood.

 

   (1.f)  Has anyone = threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme

          = discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in

          separate = email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It

          should be = in a separate email because this questionnaire is

          entered = into the ID Tracker.)

 

There is no opposition to this = document.

 

   (1.g)  Has the Document = Shepherd personally verified that the

          document = satisfies all ID nits?  (See

          = http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and

          = http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are

          not enough; = this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document

          met all = formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB

          Doctor, = media type, and URI type reviews?  If the document

          does not = already indicate its intended status at the top of

          the first = page, please indicate the intended status here.

 

The document does not contain = nits.

 

   (1.h)  Has the document = split its references into normative and

          = informative?  Are there normative references to documents that

          are not = ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear

          = state?  If such normative references exist, what is the

          strategy = for their completion?  Are there normative references

          that are = downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If

          so, list = these downward references to support the Area

          Director in = the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

 

The document has been split into normative = and informative references.

There are no normative refereces that are = work in progress or downward

references.

 

   (1.i)  Has the Document = Shepherd verified that the document's IANA

          = Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body

          of the = document?  If the document specifies protocol

          extensions, = are reservations requested in appropriate IANA

          = registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If

          the = document creates a new registry, does it define the

          proposed = initial contents of the registry and an allocation

          procedure = for future registrations?  Does it suggest a

          reasonable = name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the

          document = describes an Expert Review process, has the Document

          Shepherd = conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that

          the IESG = can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

 

The document has an IANA considerations = section that is consistent with the body.

The document only request allocations of new = OID under MIB-2.

 

   (1.j)  Has the Document = Shepherd verified that sections of the

          document = that are written in a formal language, such as XML

          code, BNF = rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in

          an = automated checker?

 

The document contains MIB definitions. They = have been validated and all definitions

follow mib-2 syntax.

 

   (1.k)  The IESG approval = announcement includes a Document

          = Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document

          = Announcement Write-Up.  Recent examples can be found in the

          = "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval

          = announcement contains the following sections:

 

   Technical = Summary

 

     The document = specifies the minimum required set of MIB objects

     necessary to manage = a Diameter CC application using SNMP. The document

     specifies a MIB = module that is compliant to the SMIv2. In

     particular it = descirbes the MIB objects used for managing

     the Diameter CC = application (RFC4006).

 

   Working Group = Summary

 

     There was consensus = in the WG to publish the document.

 

   Document = Quality

 

     The document has = been reviewed by members of the DIME WG

     for its sanity in = terms of the tunable objects and variables

     necessary for = managing a Diameter node. It has also been reviewed

     by external folks = who have vested interest in having a MIB module

     standardized. = Additionally, the document has been passed through

     automated MIB = checking tools to verify sanity of syntax and

     = structure.

 

   Personnel

 

     Victor Fajardo is = the document shepherd for this document.

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CA7CAE.CC76EC60-- From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:44:36 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314F13A68C8 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VqglQJf2cUnH for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:44:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A963A67E6 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:44:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKiJ6Y002861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:19 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKiJbh029064 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:19 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:44:18 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:47:56 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1B@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Review Reminder: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01.txt Thread-Index: Acp9x+E7Xg9/sTEGTqCg6T/zBeQ5bw== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:44:18.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FA1BEC0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Review Reminder: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:44:36 -0000 Hi all,=20 At the last IETF meeting I have asked the DIME WG participants for reviews of the Diameter NAT Control document. The following persons promised to review the document: Jouni, Tom, Glen and myself So far, I have only seen a review by Jouni: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03950.html It would be great if we could see review comments from the other volunteers before Xmas as well. Every review is obviously highly appreciated so that we can finish the document as soon as possible.=20 =20 Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:45:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A0D3A67E6 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:45:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GCanjHz4DcH7 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:45:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F81F3A68D9 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:45:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKjPkO005246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:45:26 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKjP5g004575 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:45:25 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:45:25 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:49:03 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1D@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Status of draft-ietf-dime-erp? Thread-Index: Acp9yAkOabjqgvzORMG20WUTFb3MzQ== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:45:25.0463 (UTC) FILETIME=[87410670:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Status of draft-ietf-dime-erp? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:45:42 -0000 Hi all,=20 I want to make sure that we make progress with draft-ietf-dime-erp. We discussed two issues during the IETF DIME session:=20 * handovers * authorization The meeting minutes capture the discussion to some extend:=20 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/dime.txt There was only one discussion triggered by Sebastien about the location of a roaming peer after the IETF meeting, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03932.html I believe it would help to summarize the open issues again in a mail. Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:48:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCCA3A68D8 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bTV8DATFz1U for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EC53A68C8 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKllwh006518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:47 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKljDw006949 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:46 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:31 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:51:09 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Status of draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update? Thread-Index: Acp9yFQ9d1vdtaTtTk+xAqJIFL68BQ== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:47:31.0898 (UTC) FILETIME=[D29D79A0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Status of draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:48:03 -0000 Hi all,=20 Glen has updated draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update as promised during the IETF meeting.=20 Sebastien has provided some feedback on security aspects earlier. Sebastien, have you looked at the most recent draft version?=20 Glen, could you post a status update? Are there open issues with the document?=20 Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:48:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055F03A68C8 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id euNmS54zZIeD for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6CB3A6891 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKlkhn007625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:47 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKljDu006949 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:46 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:16 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:50:54 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1E@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Review Request: draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect Thread-Index: Acp9yEs3ftFc4qWuQYO2d1zHW67WPQ== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:47:16.0586 (UTC) FILETIME=[C97D0CA0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Review Request: draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:48:04 -0000 Hi all,=20 At the last IETF meeting I have asked the audience for reviews of the Diameter Realm-based Redirect document. The following persons promised to review the document: Sebastien, Jouni, Glen, Mark, and Victor So far, the following reviews have been provided: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03933.html (Sebastien)=20 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03940.html (Jouni) Glen, Mark and Victor could you also provide your review comments?=20 Reviews by others are also highly appreciated in order to finish the document.=20 Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:48:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63023A6920 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3EW2dkvc11EQ for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B583A68F5 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKlsfd006644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:54 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKlsP5029156 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:54 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:54 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:51:32 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr Thread-Index: Acp9yGHPe1N1ZpU6QQuSvG5+j+xyEQ== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:47:54.0566 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0205660:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:48:11 -0000 Hi all,=20 During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.=20 Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:48:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9523A6920 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0f6w4crtkZP for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFEA3A68F5 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKll9k007632 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:47 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKljE0006949; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:47 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:47:44 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:51:22 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA20@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Next Steps with draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps Thread-Index: Acp9yFvnGexW4vCLSiGyobN5p0IvCg== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:47:44.0930 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA620020:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Next Steps with draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:48:12 -0000 Hi all,=20 When we worked on the Diameter QoS parameter document (now RFC 5624) we had to postpone the priority & preemption work because of dependency problems.=20 The AVPs now got moved into draft-carlberg-dime-priority-avps. During the meeting I asked whether someone would be willing to help Ken with the work on the document and Tom volunteered. So, in the next version Tom will be added as a co-author (and to remove me from the author's list).=20 I would furthermore suggest that the document gets added to the WG.=20 Please let me (and Victor) know whether you have some objections. Feeback also till the 22nd of December! Ciao Hannes From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:48:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D908E3A68CF for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRjaD5dtZDla for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60FD3A6910 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKmF2x007075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:15 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKmFmK029541 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:15 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:09 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.E82C05CB" Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:51:46 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran Thread-Index: Acp9yGqesttFlYZwSTWpN7yX8giXmA== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:48:09.0133 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8CF15D0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:48:32 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.E82C05CB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,=20 During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran I asked for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.=20 Ciao Hannes ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.E82C05CB Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

Hi all,

During the IETF meeting we had a = presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

I asked for feedback and 3 = persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody = against.

Please provide additional = feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.

Ciao
Hannes

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.E82C05CB-- From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 12:49:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EFD53A68D8 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8UGIOb4eeocg for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CEF3A68CD for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKnVQC008239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:49:31 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKnUpZ008878 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:49:31 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:47 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.FED26FCB" Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:52:25 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter Thread-Index: Acp9yIFO/XoBeJvrT1G1Pn5QgBFSfQ== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:48:47.0133 (UTC) FILETIME=[FF756CD0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:49:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.FED26FCB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,=20 During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.=20 Ciao Hannes ------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.FED26FCB Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

Hi all,

During the IETF meeting we had a = presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter<= /A>

I asked for feedback and 7 = persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody = against.

Please provide additional = feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.

Ciao
Hannes

------_=_NextPart_001_01CA7DC7.FED26FCB-- From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 15 13:08:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF4B3A68CF for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:08:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqOJ3hqlIrub for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FFF3A6814 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKnVLm008229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:49:31 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBFKnUpX008878 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:49:31 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:35 +0100 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, 15 Dec 2009 22:52:13 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr Thread-Index: Acp9yHoqrjescQ/pQ86RuDFqhQQ6Fw== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Dec 2009 20:48:35.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[F85CB6B0:01CA7DC7] Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:08:31 -0000 Hi all,=20 During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr I asked for feedback and 6 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.=20 Ciao Hannes From tena@huawei.com Tue Dec 15 19:05:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838223A6837 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3Xb5phLYkKD for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8124D3A63EC for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ002Z55QAYC@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:01:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00MNS5QAL2@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:01:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from z24109b ([10.70.39.142]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00LQ15QA66@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:01:22 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:01:22 +0800 From: Tina TSOU To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <008d01ca7dfc$0c5be4e0$8e27460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_M/kwjeBPedrwIKPKMyfS0w)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:05:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_M/kwjeBPedrwIKPKMyfS0w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytranHi, I support it as a WG item as it is useful for some scenarios. B. R. Tina http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) To: dime@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:51 AM Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran Hi all, During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran I asked for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against. Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. Ciao Hannes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --Boundary_(ID_M/kwjeBPedrwIKPKMyfS0w) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran
Hi,
I support it as a WG item as it is useful for some scenarios.
 
 
B. R.
Tina
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:51 AM
Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

Hi all,

During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

I asked for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.

Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
--Boundary_(ID_M/kwjeBPedrwIKPKMyfS0w)-- From tom111.taylor@bell.net Tue Dec 15 19:05:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371563A6955 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BlhLQ5i+tVnN for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6D53A6837 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP88 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:39 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [70.54.11.20] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([70.54.11.20]) by BLU0-SMTP88.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:05:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:05:37 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 03:05:39.0312 (UTC) FILETIME=[A55E1F00:01CA7DFC] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:05:54 -0000 I'll confirm my YES vote. Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran > > I asked for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From tom111.taylor@bell.net Tue Dec 15 19:06:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2A83A6969 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.726 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ag5KzE3u2u-w for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.112]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9B23A695F for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP89 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:02 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [70.54.11.20] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([70.54.11.20]) by BLU0-SMTP89.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:05:57 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 03:06:02.0261 (UTC) FILETIME=[B30BDC50:01CA7DFC] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:06:17 -0000 I'll confirm my YES vote. Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr > > I asked for feedback and 6 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > From tom111.taylor@bell.net Tue Dec 15 19:06:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D99E3A6973 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.812 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXXwMsqgiSgV for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s4.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s4.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FCB3A6955 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP22 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s4.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:22 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [70.54.11.20] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([70.54.11.20]) by BLU0-SMTP22.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:22 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:06:20 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 03:06:22.0647 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF328470:01CA7DFC] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:06:37 -0000 YES Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > From tom111.taylor@bell.net Tue Dec 15 19:06:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7E33A6974 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w+2aRGj1dUCY for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819033A6973 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP74 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:40 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [70.54.11.20] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([70.54.11.20]) by BLU0-SMTP74.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:06:39 -0800 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:06:37 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 03:06:39.0719 (UTC) FILETIME=[C95F7F70:01CA7DFC] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:06:54 -0000 YES Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Wed Dec 16 00:15:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5255E3A694A for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id agkmdnyVpNTd for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D5B3A67F2 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 19so279470fgg.13 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=EyKYaMg1+wq+9kt/WGwB4Ch8f5lGORBJIBIv3m0Mc2Q=; b=FgvisGQv5mrC4EFk85bKnHWnKUFUYqv0aOHb2Jdi3X8HkRXAs11GUL1B29JJBKSOg6 gnwXKCzY8CzObzcMe3BdjAXsgBCChKdufX5Rji2vm+wsBf1zmm6gc217xU/8D+KZzmCZ tNqL2Zj3GVjwxVqa9y+b4VNN2BQAvMqFezol4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=QP9lf9ePEvE2JvXtz8QjJP83nHHXdvjFrRSx3EvAO3lt8CceOa6UF1yCv1f/Gc9pXT DIEYcbLJvtlM32zrcuB7xeydhFeCpU7I0FaFvNGsjM+05RAxMRzzzxjuyc0ftEZUSqaH LxiMefzOJSLUim5J4lcsif9B2c0u5OPMlvT4U= Received: by 10.86.186.19 with SMTP id j19mr866431fgf.68.1260951331288; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.254.1.193? ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e3sm10722634fga.1.2009.12.16.00.15.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:15:30 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:15:10 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:15:50 -0000 I'll re-confirm my YES for adoption. Jouni On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From tanakai@nttdocomo.co.jp Wed Dec 16 00:23:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27263A67F6 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:23:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WHNFrsCyYNPV for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:23:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcsg-mailro13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (dish-sg.nttdocomo.co.jp [202.19.227.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB48C3A67B2 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:23:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcsg-mailmt13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (zcsg-mailmt10.is.nttdocomo.co.jp [10.160.86.41]) by zcsg-mailro13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344F73400A for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from smtp_saver-daemon.zcsg-mailmt13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp by zcsg-mailmt13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (NTT DoCoMo Mail System) id <0KUQ00N5BKMSD700@NTTDoCoMo.co.jp> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from zcsg-mailmi13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (zcsg-mailmi10.is.nttdocomo.co.jp [10.160.86.49]) by zcsg-mailmt13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (NTT DoCoMo Mail System) with SMTP id <0KUQ00N9EKMSQY90@NTTDoCoMo.co.jp> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from unknown (HELO zcsg-mailvs13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp) (10.160.86.48) by 0 with SMTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 Received: from zcsg-mailvs13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.nttdocomo.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F97F8C003; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from zcsg-mailsa11.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (zcsg-mailsa10.is.nttdocomo.co.jp [10.160.86.46]) by zcsg-mailvs13.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D188C002; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from gc_check-daemon.zcsg-mailsa11.is.nttdocomo.co.jp by zcsg-mailsa11.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (NTT DoCoMo Mail System) id <0KUQ00C8TKMR6N00@NTTDoCoMo.co.jp>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (aktanakai223.docomo.docomogr.net [10.19.219.23]) by zcsg-mailsa11.is.nttdocomo.co.jp (NTT DoCoMo Mail System) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00CETKMQU400@NTTDoCoMo.co.jp>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:15 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:23:14 +0900 From: Itsuma TANAKA In-reply-to: To: jouni korhonen Message-id: <4B2898F2.5090002@nttdocomo.co.jp> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-DoCoMo: ZCSG References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) Cc: dime@ietf.org, Takaaki MATSUURA Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:23:32 -0000 Dear All, I'd like to support this proposal to be a part of DiME charter. Thank you. Itsuma Tanaka NTT DOCOMO jouni korhonen wrote: > I'll re-confirm my YES for adoption. > > Jouni > > On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr >> >> I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document >> becoming a WG item and nobody against. >> >> Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of >> December. >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > From sunseawq@huawei.com Wed Dec 16 00:53:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C12083A692C for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:53:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UaXiwie5+kOh for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9843A6782 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00FMHM0TDE@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:53:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00FO2M0TNB@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:53:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00MNGM0SAG@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:53:17 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:53:16 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <043901ca7e2d$358076c0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:53:45 -0000 Hi, all: I support to adopt this as WG item. Also as we mentioned in the IETF 76, LMA resolution described in [I-D. liebsch-dime-pmip6-lmaresolve] is also relevant to this draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr, The merging work is going on. We would like to see "WG draft" will be a combination of these two. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:52 AM Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr > > I asked for feedback and 6 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From sunseawq@huawei.com Wed Dec 16 00:54:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A2E3A6782 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:54:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.257 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPKjUHc65mc7 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223483A68B3 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00NFJM2104@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:54:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00DP4M210O@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:54:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00KL6M21S8@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:54:01 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:54:01 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Sebastien Decugis , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <044001ca7e2d$502090a0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4B0232F5.3030805@nict.go.jp> Subject: Re: [Dime] Need to know the location of a roaming peer? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:54:27 -0000 Hi, Sebastien: I think the location of the roaming peer you refer is the current authenticator ID or NAS IP address. Right? But if you refer to he location of the roaming peer as the user location like user IP address, I think location determining in Emergency service is quite different from ERP service. Because Emergency service depends on other location technology like GPS, cell area based location, LBS capability to determine the location of roaming peer. But in ERP service, location of a roaming peer can not been provided to the server using ERP exchange. Only NAS IP address can be provided to the server. Right? In the emergency service, it seems to me the Diameter server should know the current location of new authenticator each time the peer moves to the new authenticator. The location requstor may be Public Safety Answering Point(PSAP) not the roaming peer. But I am not sure Diameter server described in Diameter Parameter Query draft should be located in the visited realm or home realm. Maybe it is more appropriate to locate the Diameter server in the local domain. Because the emergency service may be limited in scope to a single country or possibly a group of countries and supported locally. Anyway location of diameter server may depend on specific deployments. Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sebastien Decugis" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:21 PM Subject: [Dime] Need to know the location of a roaming peer? > Hello all, > > During the last meeting (thanks Hannes and Jouni for the minutes) there > was a discussion about the need (or absence of need) to notify the home > domain when a peer changes its authenticator in a visited domain. During > the discussion on ERP, my understanding of the conclusion was that we > should do the re-authentication locally when possible in the visited > domain, without going back to home domain. Then, in case new > authorization attributes are needed, we have a separate exchange with > the home realm to fetch these fresh authorization attributes, after the > authentication is performed. > > Later during the session, a remark on emergency services (related to > Diameter Parameter Query draft if I am not mistaken) sent the question > back on the table, highlighting that in some contexts we may want to > query the home server for the current location of the user. I am > wondering, if the peer can move without the home server being notified > (we assume server-initiated messages are routed transparently to the > correct recipient) then the design of such query mechanism will be > affected and complexity added. > I would like to ask the list if there is strong concerns with "hiding" > the current authenticator of a roaming user to the home server, the > result being that the home realm only knows the current location with a > granularity of the realm (inter-realm handovers should still have to go > to the home realm, AFAIU). > > PS: I am wondering, in the context of emergency services, if we are > really interested by the authenticator or by the point of attachment for > the given peer, as I understand there is a difference in some deployment > schemes... > > Thank you for any comment, > > Best regards, > Sebastien. > > -- > Sebastien Decugis > Research fellow > Network Architecture Group > NICT (nict.go.jp) > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From sunseawq@huawei.com Wed Dec 16 00:55:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3BE3A699C for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:55:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UIEyLPX7q1JJ for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DECC3A6992 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:55:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00N7QM4L04@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00CH6M4LE4@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00EYIM4LRY@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:33 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:55:32 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <045d01ca7e2d$86d6e9a0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_2t40AbSRvBk20YwCRUBOgQ)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:55:59 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_2t40AbSRvBk20YwCRUBOgQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamterYES. ----- Original Message ----- From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) To: dime@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:52 AM Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter Hi all, During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against. Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. Ciao Hannes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --Boundary_(ID_2t40AbSRvBk20YwCRUBOgQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter
YES.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:52 AM
Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

Hi all,

During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.

Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
--Boundary_(ID_2t40AbSRvBk20YwCRUBOgQ)-- From sunseawq@huawei.com Wed Dec 16 01:24:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450F13A699C for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:24:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.221, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZuUQTGFwHhVE for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC2F3A6811 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:24:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ005QANGEPS@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:24:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KUQ00DPLNGE3B@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:24:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KUQ00KPWNGDS8@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:24:14 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:24:13 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <04c901ca7e31$886b9690$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:24:39 -0000 YES. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:51 AM Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From julien.bournelle@gmail.com Wed Dec 16 02:33:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6BA3A6958 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWE8I+suzaTd for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f214.google.com (mail-ew0-f214.google.com [209.85.219.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118FD3A6781 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so836620ewy.29 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:32:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j85qhNYxRERFuyrSbn99VpWBav6uzGVVLKvoz9wl7/E=; b=u+H4XFmjTYVAmIiQ51yQmhtezpljnn0NDa3G0586wDNYidvpXNV7MNKyWWhTw4QDVd TvXLWD9HasIS0pVLIzWtB+sUmdy1JzQb8MBLJ9mpJTxAZvrE3dqLQvWHmB6Gz3bqO8eH Bu4F3nrKTCghAHAUjQbTBV2gytT1hP3S3NnAw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jLl6+i1ogl+1dpCU/52d4pxQpqIisSkmitjkfcm38ycSEtkLuzOoed4IPGu1jCcLT5 AIRjQeIQmBTodg1hXEcBsORzg8220DGK/muzCQZ2qVgHi0vmU79ZInd3JJdu2vKOnoUz n6khvWXUwzjV2o3iHiuhdfLhyGMAF0RI8NUvk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.148 with SMTP id w20mr306229wee.138.1260959563249; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:32:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: <5e2406980912160232u1635d1f9pdb64a022e1e097d9@mail.gmail.com> From: Julien Bournelle To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d7ef38d7f81f047ad6069f Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:33:02 -0000 --0016e6d7ef38d7f81f047ad6069f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, A question for this document: do we know the use-case for this ? Regards, Julien On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) < hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > *http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter* > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a > WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > --0016e6d7ef38d7f81f047ad6069f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

=A0A question for this document: do we know the use-case for = this ?

=A0Regards,

=A0Julien

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) <hannes.tscho= fenig@nsn.com> wrote:

Hi all,

During the IETF meeting we had a p= resentation for
= http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

I asked for feedback and 7 persons= were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.

Please provide additional feedback= (for or against) by the 22nd of December.

Ciao
Hannes


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime


--0016e6d7ef38d7f81f047ad6069f-- From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Dec 16 13:28:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4353A67AF for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:28:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.628 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.971, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knL+lELqoB7I for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:28:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EAD8F3A68CD for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:28:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11153 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 21:28:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by smtpauth02.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.182) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2009 21:27:59 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:27:56 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <003201ca7e96$a2782f20$e7688d60$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp9yGHPe1N1ZpU6QQuSvG5+j+xyEQAzg/zw Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:28:19 -0000 It's OK with me (though I have reservations about both the necessity of the work & the security of dynamic discovery). Hope this helps. ~gwz > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > > I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Dec 16 13:29:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364B03A6910 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:29:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.678 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.920, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1qa2VnEAcAHC for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout07.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout07-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 458313A68EC for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:29:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15091 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 21:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by smtpout07.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.230) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2009 21:28:48 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA22@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:28:45 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <003301ca7e96$bfb254d0$3f16fe70$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01CA7E53.B18F14D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp9yGqesttFlYZwSTWpN7yX8giXmAAzktjw Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:29:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01CA7E53.B18F14D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm in favor of it. Hope this helps. ~gwz From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran Hi all, During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran I asked for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against. Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. Ciao Hannes ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01CA7E53.B18F14D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

I'm in favor of it.

 

Hope this helps.

 

~gwz

 

From:= dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: = draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

 

Hi all, =

During the = IETF meeting we had a presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran

I asked = for feedback and 3 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item = and nobody against.

Please = provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. =

Ciao
Hannes =

------=_NextPart_000_0034_01CA7E53.B18F14D0-- From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Dec 16 13:33:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F633A6916 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.874, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSkKK0LAVz6v for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout06-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0928C3A68F9 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 30016 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 21:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by smtpout06.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.224) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2009 21:32:48 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:32:45 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <003801ca7e97$4f029050$ed07b0f0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA7E54.40DF5050" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp9yIFO/XoBeJvrT1G1Pn5QgBFSfQAzphkQ Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:33:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA7E54.40DF5050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit OK w/me. The supplied link is broken, though; a correct one is http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diameter-00.txt. Hope this helps. ~gwz From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter Hi all, During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against. Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. Ciao Hannes ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA7E54.40DF5050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

OK w/me.  The supplied link is broken, though; a = correct one is <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New = Roman","serif";color:#1F497D; text-decoration:none'>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diam= eter-00.txt.

 

Hope this helps.

 

~gwz

 

From:= dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: = draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter

 

Hi all, =

During the = IETF meeting we had a presentation for
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter=

I asked = for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item = and nobody against.

Please = provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December. =

Ciao
Hannes =

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CA7E54.40DF5050-- From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Dec 16 13:33:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C953A67E5 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.767 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.767 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.832, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMdh7kPFJ8K6 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpauth21.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth21.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7247C3A67AF for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14396 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 21:33:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by smtpauth21.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.38) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2009 21:33:41 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:33:38 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <003d01ca7e97$6e8371b0$4b8a5510$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp9yHoqrjescQ/pQ86RuDFqhQQ6FwAzt6Sg Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:33:57 -0000 Fine w/me. Hope this helps. ~gwz > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:52 PM > To: dime@ietf.org > Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr > > Hi all, > > During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr > > I asked for feedback and 6 persons were in favor of the document > becoming a WG item and nobody against. > > Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of > December. > > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From gwz@net-zen.net Wed Dec 16 14:10:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3602C3A69C2 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:10:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.804 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.795, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XxaEGblIcZtp for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:10:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E8AAE3A6A40 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 14718 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2009 22:10:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (24.22.129.187) by p3plsmtpa01-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.81) with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2009 22:10:19 -0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)'" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:10:16 -0800 Organization: Network Zen Message-ID: <005201ca7e9c$8c94cb40$a5be61c0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp9yFQ9d1vdtaTtTk+xAqJIFL68BQA09CCw Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Status of draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:10:37 -0000 Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) [mailto://hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com] writes: > Hi all, > > Glen has updated draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update as promised during > the IETF meeting. > Sebastien has provided some feedback on security aspects earlier. > Sebastien, have you looked at the most recent draft version? > > Glen, could you post a status update? Sorry, I don't track the status of drafts, preferring to leave that to WG Chairs ;-). > Are there open issues with the document? Can't think of any, no. ... From Wolfgang.Steigerwald@t-systems.com Fri Dec 18 05:43:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E4E3A6969 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vh8QtP8NG3oH for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203393A67FB for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:43:28 -0800 (PST) From: Received: from s4de9jsaanm.mgb.telekom.de (HELO S4DE9JSAANM.ost.t-com.de) ([10.125.177.122]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2009 14:43:02 +0100 Received: from S4DE9JSAANH.ost.t-com.de ([10.125.177.222]) by S4DE9JSAANM.ost.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:43:02 +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: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:43:03 +0100 Message-ID: <5DB86FE558C707408F58C3772801C2CA013BB1C3@S4DE9JSAANH.ost.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr Thread-Index: Acp9yGHPe1N1ZpU6QQuSvG5+j+xyEQCHtY2A References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA21@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2009 13:43:02.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[0500A8F0:01CA7FE8] Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:43:30 -0000 Hello Hanes, I'm in favour that the document become a WG item. Best regards Wolfgang >-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >Von: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] Im=20 >Auftrag von Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009 21:52 >An: dime@ietf.org >Betreff: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > >Hi all,=20 > >During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 >http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jones-dime-extended-naptr > >I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the=20 >document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 > >Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the=20 >22nd of December.=20 > >Ciao >Hannes >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > From root@core3.amsl.com Fri Dec 18 10:45:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id D16CF3A68E9; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20091218184501.D16CF3A68E9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:45:01 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Traffic Classification and Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.txt Pages : 44 Date : 2009-12-18 This document defines a number of Diameter attribute-value pairs (AVP) for traffic classification with actions for filtering and Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. These AVPs can be used in existing and future Diameter applications where permitted by the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) specification of the respective Diameter command extension policy. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-12-18104009.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From jouni.nospam@gmail.com Mon Dec 21 03:13:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022223A69DC for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:13:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8u1wNWgrmhk for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f215.google.com (mail-fx0-f215.google.com [209.85.220.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE4B3A68B5 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm7 with SMTP id 7so4721547fxm.29 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:12:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=A85/jlI3xNSvuMqAhl9EhsmBWfs82ZYfkyyT06Gctpc=; b=kRRZ2A8M7Z7Q+EzgWNGa+UK2i11vczDWYHjKeE/4pKNk1FOInico0hiSxqCOrvVPdX d/Yt2f/NFxwjY6IrfQpXNflDHeWO//uqncBKL+npJk46BYKBh8nyp+57NT+hyPNWBdn5 6obyLSUqC9a1sagWeym9UCD2ehEgUMM9u8Qmk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=BSzj40+MidfRrENjmEh8rYngT6zZGBtQVFZmgTIPzjccrIJ/zUyVn5pf0eHFqiwf1P /R3EhGlmhiNquuapIFKrhDRwuzRcDaNx9pcHrElDR/rUIDc+ZfcU5db7asaBXL4mBZUt vY+SiIX7eubha9vkrTy6l+1oqCf6ewEyreEcw= Received: by 10.223.59.3 with SMTP id j3mr9655833fah.46.1261393958779; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:12:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-114-173-122.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-173-122.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.173.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm8455653fke.53.2009.12.21.03.12.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:12:38 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: jouni korhonen X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <043901ca7e2d$358076c0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:12:39 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA23@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <043901ca7e2d$358076c0$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> To: Qin Wu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:13:00 -0000 I support the merged/combined work. Cheers, Jouni On Dec 16, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Qin Wu wrote: > Hi, all: > I support to adopt this as WG item. > Also as we mentioned in the IETF 76, LMA resolution described in [I-D. = liebsch-dime-pmip6-lmaresolve] is also relevant to this = draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr, > The merging work is going on. We would like to see "WG draft" will be = a combination of these two. >=20 > Regards! > -Qin > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" = > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:52 AM > Subject: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr >=20 >=20 >> Hi all,=20 >>=20 >> During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-dime-pmip6-lr >>=20 >> I asked for feedback and 6 persons were in favor of the document >> becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 >>=20 >> Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of >> December.=20 >>=20 >> Ciao >> Hannes >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Mon Dec 21 09:47:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 807113A6A46; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:47:46 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: <20091221174746.807113A6A46@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:47:46 -0800 (PST) Cc: Internet Architecture Board , dime mailing list , dime chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Dime] Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:47:46 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Traffic Classification and Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.txt Technical Summary This document specifies a set of AVPs that is used to carry QoS rules and parameters so that a Diameteter application that needs QoS support can signal them. Information contained in these AVPs are to be interpreted and consumed by QoS classifying entities. The Rule-Set AVP is intended to replace the IPFilterRule AVP defined in RFC 3588. It provides a clear and more extensible format than the original text based approach provided by IPFilterRule. The AVPs defined in this document are designed to be general enough to fit both PUSH and PULL QoS signalling models. The document provides examples on how both models are accomplished using existing Diameter applications. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been sent for review to TSVWG and RADEXT. This document defines a core component of a Network Operators QoS architecture and thus have gone through a long review process both within DIME WG and outside of it. It has also traversed several re-start iteration before its current acceptable state. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director. From dromasca@avaya.com Tue Dec 22 05:04:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD9228B56A for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:04:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.433 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFTCovCRZv2n for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:04:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B963A67B1 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:04:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,436,1257138000"; d="scan'208";a="195503285" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2009 08:04:14 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.13]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2009 08:04:13 -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, 22 Dec 2009 14:03:57 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and Quality ofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AcqCZazo8XptsClLR2Wl9P1qzskPqQAoXxHg From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Dime] FW: Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and Quality ofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:04:32 -0000 Congratulations! Dan -----Original Message----- From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:48 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: Internet Architecture Board; dime mailing list; dime chair; RFC Editor Subject: [Dime] Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and Quality ofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Traffic Classification and Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group.=20 The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.tx t Technical Summary This document specifies a set of AVPs that is used to carry QoS rules and parameters so that a Diameteter application that needs QoS support can signal them. Information contained in these AVPs are to be interpreted and consumed by QoS classifying entities. The Rule-Set AVP is intended to replace the IPFilterRule AVP defined in RFC 3588. It provides a clear and more extensible format than the original text based approach provided by IPFilterRule. The AVPs defined in this document are designed to be general enough to fit both PUSH and PULL QoS signalling models. The document provides examples on how both models are accomplished using existing Diameter applications. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been sent for review to TSVWG and RADEXT. This document defines a core component of a Network Operators QoS architecture and thus have gone through a long review process both within DIME WG and outside of it. It has also traversed several re-start iteration before its current acceptable state. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Dec 22 05:50:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F4B3A6810 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:50:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6sI44MyTyOzY for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:50:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214843A6816 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:50:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBMDoAXG002625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:50:10 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBMDo9sB005144; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:50:09 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:50:09 +0100 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, 22 Dec 2009 15:53:52 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45020154DC@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and QualityofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AcqCZazo8XptsClLR2Wl9P1qzskPqQAoXxHgAAGkpsA= References: From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2009 13:50:09.0709 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD32EDD0:01CA830D] Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and QualityofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:50:33 -0000 Thanks, Dan.=20 The progress on this document will now unblock two other specifications, namely http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-17.txt and http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-pmip6-04.txt. =20 Ciao Hannes -----Original Message----- From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Sent: 22 December, 2009 15:04 To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] FW: Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and QualityofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard Congratulations! Dan -----Original Message----- From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:48 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: Internet Architecture Board; dime mailing list; dime chair; RFC Editor Subject: [Dime] Protocol Action: 'Traffic Classification and Quality ofService Attributes for Diameter' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Traffic Classification and Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group.=20 The IESG contact persons are Dan Romascanu and Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-15.tx t Technical Summary This document specifies a set of AVPs that is used to carry QoS rules and parameters so that a Diameteter application that needs QoS support can signal them. Information contained in these AVPs are to be interpreted and consumed by QoS classifying entities. The Rule-Set AVP is intended to replace the IPFilterRule AVP defined in RFC 3588. It provides a clear and more extensible format than the original text based approach provided by IPFilterRule. The AVPs defined in this document are designed to be general enough to fit both PUSH and PULL QoS signalling models. The document provides examples on how both models are accomplished using existing Diameter applications. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been sent for review to TSVWG and RADEXT. This document defines a core component of a Network Operators QoS architecture and thus have gone through a long review process both within DIME WG and outside of it. It has also traversed several re-start iteration before its current acceptable state. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From shwethab@cisco.com Wed Dec 23 23:08:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CAC3A679C for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:08:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TJ-mcEIySpK1 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569ED3A635F for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:08:50 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.193.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Dec 2009 07:08:32 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAJuiMktAaHte/2dsb2JhbAC/JpZrgj2BdgSCfQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,448,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="63323664" Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.123.94]) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Dec 2009 07:08:33 +0000 Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBO78Np7003564; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:08:30 GMT Received: from xmb-bgl-416.cisco.com ([72.163.129.212]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:38:23 +0530 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, 24 Dec 2009 12:38:40 +0530 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <525ECBEE-A11B-41B9-BAAC-E1D7C72F1B58@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01 Thread-Index: Acp4VjqECM1jEdBlTe6I7f5xhEqAjAMDFEWw References: <525ECBEE-A11B-41B9-BAAC-E1D7C72F1B58@gmail.com> From: "Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)" To: "jouni korhonen" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2009 07:08:23.0055 (UTC) FILETIME=[E156F1F0:01CA8467] Cc: vaneeta@mavenir.com Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:11:08 -0000 Hi Jouni, Thank you for the review! We will take care of your comments in the next version of the draft. Some responses inline @shwetha -----Original Message----- From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:01 AM To: dime@ietf.org Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne); Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab); vaneeta@mavenir.com; vfajardo@research.telcordia.com Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01 Hi, In Hiroshima I volunteered to review this I-D. I would say the I-D is in rather good shape and my comments are not too technical. See my initial comments inline (after the first read of this draft). Comments are prefixed with [JiK]. ----- In Section 4.1. The current version of the draft assumes that the NAT control requesting entity is always the DNCA manager. Sessions will always be initiated, updated, or terminated by the DNCA manager. This mode of operation is sometimes also referred to as "push mode". Session initiation by the DNCA agent (sometimes referred to as "pull mode") will be covered in a future version of this draft. [JiK] How is the push mode supposed to work when the manager is located in the AAA server? What trigger the AAA to send a NCR request to a LSN? [shwetha] When the AAA server authenticates/authorizes or receives an accounting record for the subscriber session it would trigger a DNCA session with DNCA Agent. We will add this detail. We are considering dropping of pull mode as it would keep the application simple.=20 return a NCA with Result-Code set to Insufficient- Classifiers. [JiK] extra space above.. and probably the Insufficient-Classifiers should be in uppercase like the other result codes in this draft are. In Section 4.3 (and through out the draft): [JiK] In general, when discussing of AVPs in the text, for example: o In case Max-NAT-Binding and Nat-Control-Definition are included in the NCR along with a reference to a binding rule (i.e. a ... I would actually add the "AVP" acronym after the appropriate AVP has been mentioned: o In case Max-NAT-Binding and Nat-Control-Definition AVPs are included in the NCR along with a reference to a binding rule (i.e. a ... In Section 4.5. and onwards [JiK] .,$s/TERMINATE REQUEST/TERMINATE_REQUEST/g [JiK] s/Terminate REQUEST/TERMINATE_REQUEST In Section 4.6. Disclaimer: This version of the draft does not cover details in case DNCA manager and DNCA agent go out of sync, which could happen for example due to DNCA manager or DNCA agent restart, (temporary) loss of network connectivity etc. Future versions of this draft will cover failure cases and corresponding behavior of DNCA manager and DNCA agent in detail. [JiK] Will there be a future version of this draft that covers this case? o The DNCA manager is unreachable (as e.g. detected by Diameter watchdog) or down and accounting requests from the DNCA agent fail to get a response. The current version of the draft does not specify procedures for DNCA agent session state clean up or recovery. The mechanism to ensure that a DNCA manager no longer has associated state for a session being cleared at the DNCA agent is beyond the scope of this document. [JiK] Same comment as above.. [shwetha] We are considering deleting any reference to Pull mode for session recovery. Will reword the details accordingly. In Section 5.1. [JiK] s/IPSec may be used/IPSec MAY be used [JiK] s/The DNCA agent may verify/The DNCA agent MAY verify In Section 5.4. It is assumed that the DNCA manager knows the address/name of the DNCA agent for a given endpoint. Both the Destination-Realm and ... [JiK] I would rather say "knows the DiameterIdentity and the realm of the.." In Section 6.2. (NCA) [JiK] Is redirection supported? [shwetha] Yes, we will add the Proxyable flag. In Section 7.3. [JiK] How and what goes into Called/Calling-Station-Id ? I would not mind saying more specifically what identifier goes there and using what encoding. [shwethab] We will modify NCR to carry Calling-Station-Id, which will be the layer 2 address of the subscriber. This will be encoded as specified in RFC 4005. We will remove reference to Called-Station-Id as we are not using it. Calling-Station-Id will serve as another identifier for the subscriber and can be repeated by DNCA-agent in the accounting requests for that subscriber. Will clarify it in the draft. In Section 7.7.* [JiK] Have you thought of reusing the Classifier AVPs from draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes e.g. within the NAT-Internal-Address and NAT-Control-Definition grouped AVPs? Or is the reference in Section 7.5 just wrong? [shwetha]We have reused Port AVP, Protocol AVP and Direction AVP from draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes. We found Classifier-AVP to be too generic to be reused as is in NAT-Control-Definition, as bindings are address per IP/port combinition only, hence the NAT-Internal-Address is Framed-IP-Address and port. In Section 7.7.5. NAT-Internal-Address ::=3D < AVP Header: TBD > [ Framed-IP-Address ] [ Port] [ AVP ] [JiK] s/[ AVP ]/* [ AVP ] In Section 7.7.6. [JiK] Same as above. In Section 8. [JiK] Which application id is used for accounting? [shwetha] We will update the draft with this detail. We are thinking of using Diameter NAT Control Application ID with ACR/ACA. Thoughts? Thanks, Shwetha Is Section 13.1. [JiK] I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes is not referenced. I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters is not referenced. TS32299 is not referenced (and is rather old version as well, latest being 9.1.0 from Oct 2009) =20 Cheers, Jouni From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Mon Dec 28 02:00:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D323A68EA for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:00:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_23=1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+lgSEDxi4IM for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9754B3A68BD for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:00:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSA0XgG002962 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:00:33 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSA0WLa030745; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:00:32 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:00:32 +0100 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, 28 Dec 2009 12:04:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C48F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <5e2406980912160232u1635d1f9pdb64a022e1e097d9@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter Thread-Index: Acp+OxxvWsM3B7JzTYGSStSQt+miOgJaXQyQ References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA24@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <5e2406980912160232u1635d1f9pdb64a022e1e097d9@mail.gmail.com> From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Julien Bournelle" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2009 10:00:32.0846 (UTC) FILETIME=[9806F6E0:01CA87A4] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:00:57 -0000 Hi Julien,=20 =20 when you look at the Diameter Mobile IPv6 HA<->AAA interaction then there are different ways for authenticating the mobile node. We have supported a number of authentication mechanisms already in http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-17.txt and the usage of a PSK is another possible option, which is documented in draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diameter.=20 We had some challenges to get the security mechanisms right when we worked on draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split but we were also under pressure to get the document completed and hence we removed the PSK support (and the Cert support, I believe). It seems that a number of folks in the working group believe that they can solve these technical challenges and the feedback from the group was in favor of the document.=20 =20 Ciao Hannes ________________________________ From: ext Julien Bournelle [mailto:julien.bournelle@gmail.com]=20 Sent: 16 December, 2009 12:33 To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Re-Confirming HUM: draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter =09 =09 Hello, =09 A question for this document: do we know the use-case for this ? =09 Regards, =09 Julien =09 =09 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: =09 Hi all,=20 During the IETF meeting we had a presentation for=20 http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cakulev-ikev2-psk-diamter =20 I asked for feedback and 7 persons were in favor of the document becoming a WG item and nobody against.=20 Please provide additional feedback (for or against) by the 22nd of December.=20 Ciao=20 Hannes=20 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime =09 =09 From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Mon Dec 28 07:39:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B643A6857 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ET2HkYyNBLs0 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07433A682A for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSFckvC006676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:46 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSFcjk1013463 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:45 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:45 +0100 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, 28 Dec 2009 17:42:32 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C61C@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Potential patent application regarding draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect Thread-Index: AcqH1F70h6dVo98zQYyU09NUk5UO5Q== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2009 15:38:45.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7942560:01CA87D3] Subject: [Dime] Potential patent application regarding draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:39:08 -0000 Hi all,=20 I was informed about a potential patent application (authored by a person from Huawei) that could potentially be related to one of our drafts, namely: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-02 The following pointer was provided to me:=20 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1830520.pdf I have informed the draft authors some time ago and was hoping to see a response through the IPR tracker tool. Unfortunately, I have not seen anything. =20 Before progressing the draft further within the DIME working group I would like to determine whether there is still interest in the document despite the potential patent application.=20 Please drop a mail to the list if you think that we should still progress the document and also a note if you think we shouldn't.=20 Deadline: 23rd January 2010 (extended deadline because of the holidays) Ciao Hannes & Victor From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Mon Dec 28 07:39:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29DA3A6962 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtE5zURLc+Uj for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66013A682A for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:39:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSFctrx006957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:55 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBSFctWs029849 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:55 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:38:54 +0100 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, 28 Dec 2009 17:42:41 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C61D@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01 Thread-Index: AcqH1GQyk2Pgzi5+SlaCVW3oyielBw== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2009 15:38:55.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD22E020:01CA87D3] Subject: [Dime] WGLC for draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:39:17 -0000 Folks, Glen has submitted a new version of the "Diameter Capabilities Update Application" draft that is supposed to address all the comments received so far. Here is the latest draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-capablities-update-01 So, please, have a look at this new version and provide your feedback. This WGLC will end on the 23rd January 2010 (extended deadline because of the holidays). Ciao Hannes & Victor From tom111.taylor@bell.net Mon Dec 28 19:27:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98003A67BE for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:27:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_40=-0.185, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WdLA7A5TgAtX for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA173A6783 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU0-SMTP92 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:27:29 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [70.54.11.20] X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net] Message-ID: Received: from [192.168.2.11] ([70.54.11.20]) by BLU0-SMTP92.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:27:29 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:27:26 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C61C@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C61C@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2009 03:27:29.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9858C20:01CA8836] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Potential patent application regarding draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:27:49 -0000 The IPR disclosure is on its way. Huawei's legal department has processed it. Not sure what other process is involved, but apparently the disclosure will be out there in a few days. Just to clarify the situation: -- I personally was unaware of the IPR until Hannes told me about it. -- As I told Hannes, I meant to report what he had told me about the IPR when I got around to replying to the reviews Sebastien and Jouni very kindly provided. -- Between family Christmas activities and other work, I have been rather slow getting around to DIME. Sorry about that. Tom Taylor Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all, > > I was informed about a potential patent application (authored by a > person from Huawei) that could potentially be related to one of our > drafts, namely: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-02 > > The following pointer was provided to me: > http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1830520.pdf > > I have informed the draft authors some time ago and was hoping to see a > response through the IPR tracker tool. Unfortunately, I have not seen > anything. > > Before progressing the draft further within the DIME working group I > would like to determine whether there is still interest in the document > despite the potential patent application. > > Please drop a mail to the list if you think that we should still > progress the document and also a note if you think we shouldn't. > > Deadline: 23rd January 2010 (extended deadline because of the holidays) > > Ciao > Hannes & Victor > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Mon Dec 28 23:45:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769B43A69A7 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:45:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sW2cXPn1zFxe for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454C23A67F8 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:45:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBT7iwKC028414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:44:59 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nBT7iw6U020645; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:44:58 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:44:58 +0100 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, 29 Dec 2009 09:48:46 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C6E2@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Potential patent application regarding draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect Thread-Index: AcqINtsd/pNDYlw1SvuQKcL1Hhu2owAJF4sw References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B450204C61C@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Tom Taylor" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2009 07:44:58.0525 (UTC) FILETIME=[D201D4D0:01CA885A] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Potential patent application regarding draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:45:22 -0000 Hi Tom, Thanks for the quick reply. Good to hear that the IPR disclosure is on it's way.=20 Ciao Hannes=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Tom Taylor [mailto:tom111.taylor@bell.net]=20 >Sent: 29 December, 2009 05:27 >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: dime@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Dime] Potential patent application regarding=20 >draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect > >The IPR disclosure is on its way. Huawei's legal department=20 >has processed it.=20 >Not sure what other process is involved, but apparently the=20 >disclosure will be out there in a few days. > >Just to clarify the situation: > >-- I personally was unaware of the IPR until Hannes told me about it. > >-- As I told Hannes, I meant to report what he had told me=20 >about the IPR when I got around to replying to the reviews=20 >Sebastien and Jouni very kindly provided. > >-- Between family Christmas activities and other work, I have=20 >been rather slow getting around to DIME. Sorry about that. > >Tom Taylor > >Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> Hi all, >>=20 >> I was informed about a potential patent application (authored by a=20 >> person from Huawei) that could potentially be related to one of our=20 >> drafts, namely: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-realm-based-redirect-02 >>=20 >> The following pointer was provided to me:=20 >> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1830520.pdf >>=20 >> I have informed the draft authors some time ago and was=20 >hoping to see=20 >> a response through the IPR tracker tool. Unfortunately, I have not=20 >> seen anything. >>=20 >> Before progressing the draft further within the DIME working group I=20 >> would like to determine whether there is still interest in the=20 >> document despite the potential patent application. >>=20 >> Please drop a mail to the list if you think that we should still=20 >> progress the document and also a note if you think we shouldn't. >>=20 >> Deadline: 23rd January 2010 (extended deadline because of the=20 >> holidays) >>=20 >> Ciao >> Hannes & Victor >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>=20 >>=20 > From sunseawq@huawei.com Tue Dec 29 01:10:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D02F3A6818 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:10:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.281 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.281 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UnYATR2Y3uYe for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:10:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B1A3A6781 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:10:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KVE00A9JPGANJ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:09:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KVE003R9PGACT@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:09:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from w53375 ([10.164.12.38]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KVE004J7PGAG1@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:09:46 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:09:46 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , dime@ietf.org Message-id: <035501ca8866$aac80f40$260ca40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B4501FDFA1B@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] Review Reminder: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:10:20 -0000 Hi,: I am volunteering to review this document. please see my minimal comments inline. ----- Abstract This document describes the framework, messages, and procedures for the Diameter NAT Control Application (DNCA), allowing for per- endpoint control of large scale NAT devices, which are put in place to cope with IPv4-address space completion. The Diameter NAT Control [Qin]: completion or depletion? In section 1: LSNs will be inserted into the existing subscriber access and aggregation networks which typically provide for per-endpoint service management and control as well as per-endpoint accounting. Per- endpoint rules include those which relate to service offerings of the SP (e.g. access bandwidth, time or volume based access restrictions) [Qin]: There is no abbrevation for "SP" in this document. Is it service provider? The per-endpoint management capabilities of a LSN comprise, for example the control of the number of NAT-address-port pairs (often called "NAT-bindings" or simply "bindings") allocated to a single endpoint. Given that global IPv4 address-port pairs are becoming a scarce resource, several service providers intend to restrict the number of NAT-bindings on a per endpoint basis and thus increase address utilization efficiency. The number of bindings an endpoint can consume becomes another parameter within a tiered-service offering. In addition, the service provider might offer static [Qin]: What is the tiered-service offering? Would you like to clarify this? In Section 3.2.1: Figure 1 shows a typical network deployment for internet access. A user's IPv4-host gains access to the internet though a Network Access [Qin]: s/though/through [Qin]: It seems figure 1 and related description of figure 1 in section 3.2.1 are redundant. I am wondering whether they are relevant to NAT control, if not, suggest to remove it. Figure 2 depicts the deployment scenario when a service provider introduces a LSN to increase the efficiency of the global IPv4 address pool utilization. The objective is to provide the customer with connectivity to the public IPv4 Internet. The LSN performs network address translation between private IPv4 addresses and public IPv4 addresses. If the LSN would be put in place without any endpoint awareness, the service offerings of the service provider would be hampered. Provisioning static NAT-bindings for particular endpoints, using different public IP-address pools for different set of endpoints (e.g. residential or business customers), as well as reporting on the allocated bindings on a per-endpoint basis would be burdensome for a service provider if the LSN would not be aware of endpoints and allow for per-endpoint control and management which easily integrates with the already existing per-endpoint management infrastructure of the service provider. [Qin]: So what's your point for this paragraph ? Suggest to add one conclusion at the end of this paragraph like: " Provisioning static NAT-bindings is bad choice in the deployment scenario mentioned above " right? In section 4.2: The DNCA manager initiates the Diameter NAT Control session to the DNCA agent. The DNCA manager generates a NAT-Control Request (NCR) [Qin]: suggest to use "issues" instead of "generates" o A reference to a predefined binding rule on DNCA agent that will be applied to the session. Such a predefined binding rule on DNCA agent may contain, for example, the name of the IP-address pool that the external IP-addresses should be allocated from, the maximum number of bindings permitted for the endpoint etc. [Qin]: It seems the maximum number of bindings is not reasonable to be taken as a reference,right? In section 4.3: Session re-authorization is performed if the DNCA manager desires to change the behavior of the LSN for an existing session. Re- authorization could be used, for example, to change the number of allowed bindings for a particular session, or establish or remove a pre-defined binding. [Qin]: It seems to me this section is not talking about Re-authorization but session modification or session update. What am I missing? In section 4.4: [Qin]:Binding is part of Session, maybe it is better to change the title as session Query. In section 5.3: Each DNCA session MUST have a globally unique Session-Id as defined in [RFC3588], which MUST NOT be changed during the lifetime of a DNCA session. The Diameter Session-Id serves as the global endpoint identifier (see also capabilities Section 3.1). The DNCA agent and DNCA manager maintain state associated with the Session-Id. This globally unique Session-Id is used for updating, accounting for and [Qin]:s/accounting for/accounting Regards! -Qin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:47 AM Subject: [Dime] Review Reminder: draft-ietf-dime-nat-control-01.txt > Hi all, > > At the last IETF meeting I have asked the DIME WG participants for > reviews of the Diameter NAT Control document. The following persons > promised to review the document: Jouni, Tom, Glen and myself > > So far, I have only seen a review by Jouni: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg03950.html > > It would be great if we could see review comments from the other > volunteers before Xmas as well. Every review is obviously highly > appreciated so that we can finish the document as soon as possible. > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime