Subject: [eap] Some comments on draft-groeting-netselection-results-00.txt

From: Ruffino Simone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:36:19 +0200

Dear authors and all,

Very useful draft: it helps understanding possibilities and problems of
having additional information carried with EAP.

I would like to better clarify some points.

1) You separate 'Roaming Agreements' and 'Mediating Networks'
information element. From my point of view, they could be merged, since
an Access Network, using MN advertising, implicitly tells the client
that it holds an agreement with the advertised MNs. What kind of hint
should RAs give to the client?

2) In my understanding of your draft, some information element (s.a.
cost and QoS) can refer both to the Access Network and to Mediating
Networks. But reading sec. 3.2 (Figure 2), it seems that all the
additional info is related only to MNs : MN1--C1--RA1--etc. Can you
clarify this ? 

3) (in Sec. 3, implementation and testing ). What kind of tests do you
performed on the testbed? What kind of scenario did you simulate ? I
think it would be very useful to have someusage example. Is it worth
including it in the draft (is it the right place ?) ?

Regards,
Simone

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================
_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap