Subject: RE: [Dime] Clarification on Auth Server state machine

From: "STURA, Marco, VF-IT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 15:05:52 +0200

Hi,

Just to add on top of Tolga statements there is an example of this kind even in the IETF. RFC 4006 defines its own FSM, so it appeared to be reasonably clear already at the time when this RFC was developed.

Br,
Marco  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Taylor [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: mercoledì 30 maggio 2007 15.01
To: Asveren, Tolga
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Dime] Clarification on Auth Server state machine

Having gone through the experience at the ITU-T, I would say that people did not understand the rules for creating an application and followed the base spec because they thought they had to do so. If there is a clear statement in the "How to create a Diameter application" document to the effect of what you just said, things will be clearer.

Asveren, Tolga wrote:
> First of all, why does Sh use authorization state machine as defined in RFC3588? There should have been a state machine defined specifically for Sh. They probably thought that the existing authentication state machine is similar to what they need. 
> 
> I think, people should understand that if they define a new Diameter application, and if that Diameter application is not an extension/similar to an existing application (whose state machine they can borrow), they need to define a state machine/semantics for it. If there is a need for change, it is the corresponding 3GPP document IMHO.
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Tolga
...

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime