Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Diameter Base update

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:11:00 +0100

Randy et al,

My interpretation of the agreement that was reached between 3GPP and the
IETF AAA WG is that the experimental command codes are something 3GPP can
*LIVE* with but it has its floors. Particularly if experimental command
codes "limited lifetime" is only 2 years which I believe was the last
agreement..?

I would still prefer the original method of Vendor Command Codes with IANA
assigning Vendor IDs which never expire. And I would be interested in
reading a good technical argument as to why these limited lifetime
Experimental Command Codes are better than the original Vendor Command
Codes. As far as I can see, they're going to be worse as the lifetime from
development, through testing, to full deployment/roll-out in a network such
as ours, would be about 2 years! So by the time we've rolled it out, it's
going to be prone to errors. How is this better!?

Cheers,
Nick

P.S.
Randy, I think you mean "ad hominem" or probably more specifically
"argumentative ad hominem" which for those who don't know Latin, basically
means attacking the man instead of the argument.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 26 July 2002 2:08am
> To: Glen Zorn
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Diameter Base update
> 
> 
> glen,
> 
> i am having a hard time finding any technical substance in your
> argument.  could you please be more clear?
> 
> as 3gpp and all other actual users (including prominent cisco folk)
> have agreed that this is a sufficient forward path, the end of the
> world does not appear very nigh from this vantage point.  and the
> ad homina are definitely not useful.
> 
> randy
> 
> 
> >> I have updated the base spec & sent it to the drafts editor
> >> for publication.
> > 
> > I think that this move is at best premature.  Allison 
> Mankin (the only IESG
> > member I could find who had even partially read a recent 
> version of the
> > draft) has promised to produce a document 'in a couple of 
> weeks' detailing
> > her objections (if any) to the draft and I think it would 
> be far better to
> > wait and see what she has to say, instead of just caving in 
> to Randy's
> > technically unjustified demands.  Furthermore, I find it 
> difficult to
> > believe that there is any WG consensus on these changes.
> > 
> >> For those of you who want to get an
> >> early look, it can be grabbed from here:
> >>
> >> http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sua/draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-12.txt
> >>
> >> The major changes deal with the replacing of Vendor Command
> >> Codes with Experimental Command codes.  Hopefully, the
> >> change is sufficient & we can send this to the IESG.
> > 
> > I may be alone on this, but I don't believe that our job as 
> a WG is to twist
> > and spindle and mutilate our work until it is acceptable to 
> the IESG (in
> > this case, actually just one IESG member).  Rather, our 
> task is to produce
> > the best work we can _through the rough-consensus based 
> IETF process_ and
> > submit it.  If the IESG refuses to even look at it, then we 
> should abandon
> > our work, rather than participating in a clear violation of 
> the process.
> > Let _them_ explain to ITU-T and TIA (not to mention 
> Vodafone, Orange, SK
> > Telecom, etc.) why they are blocking the deployment of 3G, 
> since they don't
> > seem to be disposed to explain it to us.
>

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:08:35 -0400

I'm getting a bit impatient with this.  The technical argument has been made
already: the IETF wants to retain control of the architecture of the
protocols it has developed.  That has been said plainly both with respect to
SIP and with respect to DIAMETER.  Now, can you provide a technical
counter-argument that it is impossible to change a protocol architecture
merely by adding new commands?

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:02 AM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Glen Zorn; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: Diameter Base update

As far as I know 3gpp had no problem with the original solution either. 
In fact, you are the only one who has ever *had* a problem with it, and 
you refuse to tell us what the problem is. Did you really ask "all other 
actual users"? Are you sure you didn't miss some? Also, I beg to differ 
that this is a sufficient forward path. Merging the command code 
namespaces is a backward path. Since this is to be an IETF standard it 
would seem more important that the workgroup agrees with the solution 
than anyone else.

Glen's mail doesn't have technical substance since it's not about 
technical matters but about how to repair your blatant breach of IETF 
process, i.e. it does not express a technological argument but an 
administrative one. Even had it been lacking technical substance where 
such was merited, your first priority should be to explain your 
mysterious aversion to vendor specific commands and show why they are 
dangerous. This is and has been your task for the last month(s).

John, you have submitted a draft that you know there is not only no 
workgroup consenus around, but rather there
is workgroup opposition. Until Randy produces a solid case for his 
objections that will turn the workgroup's opinion in his favour, and 
note that I am still not excluding this possibility, the problem does 
not exist. If he refuses to pass the draft on without explaining in an 
acceptable way why he does so, we can always find another way to get it 
to the IESG.

j

Randy Bush wrote:

>>I think that this move is at best premature.  Allison Mankin (the only
IESG
>>member I could find who had even partially read a recent version of the
>>draft) has promised to produce a document 'in a couple of weeks' detailing
>>her objections (if any) to the draft and I think it would be far better to
>>wait and see what she has to say, instead of just caving in to Randy's
>>technically unjustified demands.  Furthermore, I find it difficult to
>>I may be alone on this, but I don't believe that our job as a WG is to
twist
>>and spindle and mutilate our work until it is acceptable to the IESG (in
>>this case, actually just one IESG member).  Rather, our task is to produce
>>the best work we can _through the rough-consensus based IETF process_ and
>>submit it.  If the IESG refuses to even look at it, then we should abandon
>>our work, rather than participating in a clear violation of the process.
>>Let _them_ explain to ITU-T and TIA (not to mention Vodafone, Orange, SK
>>Telecom, etc.) why they are blocking the deployment of 3G, since they
don't