Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Diameter encoding of RADIUS VSA AVPs

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:39:52 +0300

Bernard,

> An SDO is not a vendor, and typically requires interoperability between
> vendors, so that this language does not apply to use by SDOs.

I generally agree.
 
> That said, it seems fairly clear to me that the IETF needs to provide a
> means by which SDOs can create their own SDO-specific attributes in a way
> that will be compatible with future standardization, if necessary.

I completely agree.  It seems that the IETF generally works from the 'not
invented here' syndrome, and wants to see everything done completely
within the IETF, which is not scalable.  I think there should be a difference
between vendor-specific attributes / extensions and ones done in SDOs,
especially ones that have cooperation with the IETF.

John

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 22:18:54 -0700 (PDT)

> within the IETF, which is not scalable.

It has become increasingly apparent that the IETF cannot handle the volume
of SNMP MIB work required by SDOs such as IEEE 802.1.  Increasingly
companies are not willing to foot the travel bill for attending multiple
SDO meetings in order to progress the same work item, and the IETF has
often become the "odd man out".

This argues to moving toward a model where the work is done within the SDO
that needs it, with review from IETF "Doctor" teams based on guidelines
documents.  This is more or less the model we are moving toward with SNMP.

To get there with AAA we will need to articulate the application design
guidelines for RADIUS and Diameter (and interoperation between them),
build up a AAA Doctor team, and iron out differences between the data
models in the enterprise and standards space within RADIUS (thankfully,
Diameter does not have such a discrepancy).

> I think there should be a difference

We will have to work through what the difference is and how it is handled.
To date we have several proposals on how to handle SDO Specific Attributes
(SSAs):

a. Allow SDOs to continue to use the existing RADIUS VSA space, but
perhaps provide updated guidance on the design of SDO-specific attributes
within that space.

b. Create a new SSA space with a fixed attribute format, so as to
enable more uniform behavior.

My sense is that a) is probably most appropriate for SDO work not done in
cooperation with IETF.  SDOs already are using the existing VSA space and
are unlikely to abandon it.

But choice b) may be workable for attributes done in SDOs with the
cooperation of the IETF, particularly where it is desired to standardize
attributes that have previously been implemented in the VSA space.

However, if choice b) is really only about IETF work, then perhaps it
makes more sense to think of it as an "IETF Extended Attribute Space"
rather than an SDO-specific space.  The difference between the two comes
from whether we think that SDOs will use the SSA space *in addition* to their
existing VSA space.

And of course in all of this we will need to understand the implications
for Diameter-RADIUS translation.