Subject: [netext] Consensus call for adopting draft-xia-netext-radius-00 as WG document

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:46:56 +0200

Hello,

At IETF77 we had consensus on adopting I-D: draft-xia-netext-radius-00 as a
WG document. 

This is a followup on the ML w.r.t the consensus reached at IETF77.

If you have any concerns or objections to adopting this I-D as a Netext WG
document, please speak up (on the list or send a note to the chairs).

-Chairs

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:00:08 +0700

> document, please speak up (on the list or send a note to the chairs).

I have no objections to the adoption of the draft but a quick review of the
document does raise a few issues.  There are a few references to Diameter
that seem irrelevant and lots of grammatical errors, but the most obvious
question is of the consistent duplication of attributes.  For example, why
are both PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv6-Address & PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv6-Address
defined?  Are both attributes expected to occur the same RADIUS message?  If
so, this should be stated; if not then there is no need, AFAICT, for two
attributes to be defined.  The IANA Considerations section doesn't say
whether the attribute numbers are to be assigned from the standard attribute
namespace but I assume that they are; that space is small & rapidly being
depleted, so I think that the unnecessary creation of standard RADIUS
attributes should be avoided.

> 
> -Chairs
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Frank Xia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:39:10 -0500

Hi Glen

Thank for your insightful review as an AAA expert!

Please check my inline reply.

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Glen Zorn
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call for adopting draft-xia-netext-radius-00
as WG document

I have no objections to the adoption of the draft but a quick review of the
document does raise a few issues.  There are a few references to Diameter
that seem irrelevant and lots of grammatical errors, 
Frank=>We will have a thorough self-check before submitting the draft.

but the most obvious
question is of the consistent duplication of attributes. 
For example, why are both PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv6-Address &
PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv6-Address
defined?  Are both attributes expected to occur the same RADIUS message? 
Frank=>Yes.  When a mobile node moves into a visited network, it has choice
to 
anchor home LMA or visited LMA based on its profile and carrier's policy.

If so, this should be stated; 
Frank=>We will.

if not then there is no need, AFAICT, for two
attributes to be defined.  The IANA Considerations section doesn't say
whether the attribute numbers are to be assigned from the standard attribute
namespace but I assume that they are; 
Frank=>You are right.

that space is small & rapidly being
depleted, so I think that the unnecessary creation of standard RADIUS
attributes should be avoided.
Frank=>Your concerns make sense. However, we think it is necessary
to have two attributes as WiMAX does.

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:09:18 +0800

Hi,
Since Radius has been adopted by WiMAX NWG to Support PMIP mobility scheme
and provide security and policy provisioning to PMIP mobility entities, I support to adopt 
this work.

Regards!
-Qin