Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Previous-FA-XXXX AVP

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:23:32 -0700

>true, or at least partly, I don't believe there is anything in the standard
>that prevents it from being done, it's just a matter of describing it
>clearly enough so that we all can be interoperable.
>
>I'm in the process of reading the new drafts and will try to come up with
>some clarifying text

The latest base protocol (-02) includes the following text:

11.7  Original-Session-Id AVP

   The Original-Session-Id AVP (AVP Code 261) is of type OctetString and
   MAY be sent in a message of type Response or Answer if the Home AAA
   server already has a session identifier for the user, and wishes to
   keep the existing Session-Id. All further messages from the Access
   Device for this session MUST use the session identifier in this AVP.
   This shouldn't be viewed as a new session, but rather renaming the
   old session.

PatC

---

From: Michael Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:36:38 -0700

It seems that Integrity-Check-Value AVP has been removed from the draft
but this AVP still show up in some place in the draft, please clean it up.

---

From: Tony Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:52:21 -0700

>    This shouldn't be viewed as a new session, but rather renaming the

Maybe it just needs to be clarified that the Original-Session-Id AVP MAY be sent
in a message of type Response or Answer from a AAA (like the AAAF or the AAAH)
server that already has a valid session identifier for the user, and wishes to
keep the existing Session-Id.

BR,

/Tony