From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:33:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915693A6891; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:33:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C6B3A6CB1; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:27:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFuZwupS-V6c; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:27:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1F528DF86; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:12:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB1DBwgt022489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:11:58 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB1DBvpr013196; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:11:58 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:11:53 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:11:56 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated Thread-Index: AclTtmLVHcDYaC+xSHeQypo0so70rg== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2008 13:11:53.0259 (UTC) FILETIME=[60F4F7B0:01C953B6] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:33:35 -0800 Cc: "Korhonen, Jouni \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" , Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com, julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com, charliep@wichorus.com Subject: [Dime] the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2120896767==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============2120896767== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C953B6.5F3642A9" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C953B6.5F3642A9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all,=20 when http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 was reviewed by the IESG we received comments about the following part of the IANA consideration section: 7.1. Registration of new AVPs This specification defines the following new AVPs: MIP6-Agent-Info is set to TBD MIP6-Feature-Vector is set to TBD MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix is set to TBD draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 essentially defined 3 Diameter AVPs. We did not care about the interworking with RADIUS in this document since there is a separate RADIUS MIPv6 document (but that one is not yet ready for prime time). We got the feedback that we should not allocate Diameter AVP codes and RADIUS attribute codes for the same functionality twice. After some discussion Jouni crafted a proposal, which can be seen in the -11 version of the draft. We discussed it during the DIME WG group meeting and the group was unhappy about the changes.=20 Let's look at the relevant part of the -11 version: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 7.1. Registration of new AVPs This specification defines the following new AVPs to be allocated from a normal Diameter AVP Code space (values >=3D 256): MIP6-Agent-Info is set to TBD The following new AVPs are to be allocated from RADIUS Type Code [RFC2685 ] space so that they are RADIUS backward compatible (AVP Code values between 0-255): MIP6-Feature-Vector is set to TBD MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix is set to TBD Draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated uses a "complex attribute" (for the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP) and hence it would have been necessary to wait for the completion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attribute s-05.txt in order to make use of it. As pointed out during the meeting there is also a problem with the usage of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attribute s-05.txt when mapping these attributes into the Diameter AVP code space. This is subject for a different discussion.=20 We allocated 2 of the 3 Diameter AVPs from the RADIUS code space.=20 What is the consequence? * Mapping an incoming Diameter message containing the MIP6-Feature-Vector and MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVPs can be mapped to a RADIUS message easily (since the code space is the same). Without using the same code space one would have to map one number to another one. * We are saving 2 values in the Diameter AVP code space but we are allocating 2 values in the RADIUS attribute code space. * Translation requires code changes for the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP).=20 During the IETF#73 DIME meeting I suggested to talk to folks implementing RADIUS-Diameter translation agents. While this helps in the longer term it will not help for this document.=20 So, any ideas on how we should move forward?=20 Ciao Hannes ------_=_NextPart_001_01C953B6.5F3642A9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated

Hi all,

when http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated= -10 was reviewed by the = IESG we received comments about the following part of the IANA = consideration section:

7.1.  Registration of new = AVPs



   This specification = defines the following new AVPs:

     = MIP6-Agent-Info         &nbs= p;      is set to TBD
     = MIP6-Feature-Vector         =    is set to TBD
     = MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix        &nbs= p; is set to TBD


draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 = essentially defined 3 Diameter AVPs. We did not care about the = interworking with RADIUS in this document since there is a separate = RADIUS MIPv6 document (but that one is not yet ready for prime = time).

We got the feedback that we should not = allocate Diameter AVP codes and RADIUS attribute codes for the same = functionality twice. After some discussion Jouni crafted a proposal, = which can be seen in the -11 version of the draft. We discussed it = during the DIME WG group meeting and the group was unhappy about the = changes.

Let's look at the relevant part of the = -11 version:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated= -11


7.1.  Registration of new = AVPs



   This specification = defines the following new AVPs to be allocated
   from a normal Diameter AVP Code space (values >=3D = 256):

     = MIP6-Agent-Info         &nbs= p;      is set to TBD

   The following new AVPs are to be allocated from RADIUS Type = Code
   [RFC2685] space so that they are RADIUS backward compatible = (AVP Code
   values between 0-255):

     = MIP6-Feature-Vector         =    is set to TBD
     = MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix        &nbs= p; is set to TBD


Draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated uses a = "complex attribute" (for the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP) and hence it = would have been necessary to wait for the completion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-exte= nded-attributes-05.txt in = order to make use of it. As pointed out during the meeting there is also = a problem with the usage of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-exte= nded-attributes-05.txt when = mapping these attributes into the Diameter AVP code space. This is = subject for a different discussion.

We allocated 2 of the 3 Diameter AVPs = from the RADIUS code space.

What is the consequence?

* Mapping an incoming Diameter message containing the = MIP6-Feature-Vector and MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVPs can be mapped to a = RADIUS message easily (since the code space is the same). Without using = the same code space one would have to map one number to another = one.

*  We are saving 2 values in the = Diameter AVP code space but we are allocating 2 values in the RADIUS = attribute code space.

* Translation requires code changes for = the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP).

During the IETF#73 DIME meeting I = suggested to talk to folks implementing RADIUS-Diameter translation = agents. While this helps in the longer term it will not help for this = document.

So, any ideas on how we should move = forward?

Ciao
Hannes

------_=_NextPart_001_01C953B6.5F3642A9-- --===============2120896767== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============2120896767==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 05:48:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC633A6909; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:48:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA0F3A6909; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:48:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5eK6rA0b1YRW; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3AC3A68D4; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:48:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB1DmMbm024922 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:48:22 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB1DmK4V001675; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:48:22 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:48:20 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:48:25 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RADIUS-Diameter Translation Agent: Implementation and Deployment Feedback Needed! Thread-Index: AclTu3up2oTCWpAxTAi1Tt0J0P0USA== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2008 13:48:20.0410 (UTC) FILETIME=[7899B9A0:01C953BB] Subject: [Dime] RADIUS-Diameter Translation Agent: Implementation and Deployment Feedback Needed! X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, we recently had a couple of discussions around the complexity of translating RADIUS to Diameter (and vice versa). It would be great to hear more about currently implemented and potentially even deployed RADIUS-Diameter translation agents. Please reply to this mail or contact me directly if you have such a device. Your input would be very valuable to understand the implementation complexity a bit better. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Hannes Tschofenig DIME WG Co-Chair _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 09:11:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064C73A69F8; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5B43A6992; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3O4X60zNwzqR; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC403A692D; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLU137-W30 ([65.55.116.73]) by blu0-omc3-s25.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:48 -0800 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [24.16.117.112] From: Bernard Aboba To: , , Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:11:48 -0800 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2008 17:11:48.0024 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4E7CB80:01C953D7] Cc: charliep@wichorus.com, jouni.korhonen@nsn.com, pasi.eronen@nokia.com, julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: Re: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0351304527==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --===============0351304527== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_2f705381-9d7a-4748-a068-abe0b943c8b5_" --_2f705381-9d7a-4748-a068-abe0b943c8b5_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Assuming that you don't want to create a dependency between this document a= nd either the RADIUS MIPv6 document or the Extended Attributes document=2C = then the choices are limited. You can try to rationalize the RADIUS attrib= utes defined in the RADIUS MIPv6 document with the ones you define in this = document=2C but there is no guarantee that this will succeed. Date: Mon=2C 1 Dec 2008 15:11:56 +0200 From: hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com To: dime@ietf.org=3B aaa-doctors@ietf.org CC: kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com=3B jouni.korhonen@nsn.com=3B Pasi.Eronen= @nokia.com=3B julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com=3B charliep@wichorus.com Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated Hi all=2C=20 when http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 was revi= ewed by the IESG we received comments about the following part of the IANA = consideration section: 7.1. Registration of new AVPs This specification defines the following new AVPs: MIP6-Agent-Info is set to TBD MIP6-Feature-Vector is set to TBD MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix is set to TBD draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 essentially defined 3 Diameter AVPs. We = did not care about the interworking with RADIUS in this document since ther= e is a separate RADIUS MIPv6 document (but that one is not yet ready for pr= ime time). We got the feedback that we should not allocate Diameter AVP codes and RADI= US attribute codes for the same functionality twice. After some discussion = Jouni crafted a proposal=2C which can be seen in the -11 version of the dra= ft. We discussed it during the DIME WG group meeting and the group was unha= ppy about the changes.=20 Let's look at the relevant part of the -11 version: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 7.1. Registration of new AVPs This specification defines the following new AVPs to be allocated from a normal Diameter AVP Code space (values >=3D 256): MIP6-Agent-Info is set to TBD The following new AVPs are to be allocated from RADIUS Type Code [RFC2685] space so that they are RADIUS backward compatible (AVP Code values between 0-255): MIP6-Feature-Vector is set to TBD MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix is set to TBD Draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated uses a "complex attribute" (for the MIP6-Ag= ent-Info AVP) and hence it would have been necessary to wait for the comple= tion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attr= ibutes-05.txt in order to make use of it. As pointed out during the meeting= there is also a problem with the usage of http://www.ietf.org/internet-dra= fts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt when mapping these attribu= tes into the Diameter AVP code space. This is subject for a different discu= ssion.=20 We allocated 2 of the 3 Diameter AVPs from the RADIUS code space.=20 What is the consequence? * Mapping an incoming Diameter message containing the MIP6-Feature-Vector a= nd MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVPs can be mapped to a RADIUS message easily (sin= ce the code space is the same). Without using the same code space one would= have to map one number to another one. * We are saving 2 values in the Diameter AVP code space but we are allocat= ing 2 values in the RADIUS attribute code space. * Translation requires code changes for the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP).=20 During the IETF#73 DIME meeting I suggested to talk to folks implementing R= ADIUS-Diameter translation agents. While this helps in the longer term it w= ill not help for this document.=20 So=2C any ideas on how we should move forward?=20 Ciao Hannes --_2f705381-9d7a-4748-a068-abe0b943c8b5_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Assuming that you don't want to create a dependency between this document a= nd either the RADIUS MIPv6 document or the Extended Attributes document=2C = then the choices are limited. =3B You can try to rationalize the RADIUS= attributes defined in the RADIUS MIPv6 document with the ones you define i= n this document=2C but there is no guarantee that this will succeed.
Date: Mon=2C 1 Dec 2008 15:11:56 +0200
From: ha= nnes.tschofenig@nsn.com
To: dime@ietf.org=3B aaa-doctors@ietf.org
CC:= kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com=3B jouni.korhonen@nsn.com=3B Pasi.Eronen@no= kia.com=3B julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com=3B charliep@wichorus.com
= Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated

the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated Hi all=2C
when http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integ= rated-10 was reviewed by the= IESG we received comments about the following part of the IANA considerati= on section:

7.1. =3B Registration of new A= VPs


 =3B =3B This specification d= efines the following new AVPs:

 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Agent-Info =3B =3B =3B&nb= sp=3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B is set to TBD
 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Feature-Vector =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B is set = to TBD
 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B is set to TBD

draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-10 essentia= lly defined 3 Diameter AVPs. We did not care about the interworking with RA= DIUS in this document since there is a separate RADIUS MIPv6 document (but = that one is not yet ready for prime time).
We got the feedback that we should not allo= cate Diameter AVP codes and RADIUS attribute codes for the same functionali= ty twice. After some discussion Jouni crafted a proposal=2C which can be se= en in the -11 version of the draft. We discussed it during the DIME WG grou= p meeting and the group was unhappy about the changes.
Let's look at the relevant part of the -11 = version:
http://tools.ietf.o= rg/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11

7.1. =3B Registration of new A= VPs


 =3B =3B This specification d= efines the following new AVPs to be allocated
 =3B =3B from a normal Diameter AVP Code space (values >=3B=3D 25= 6):

 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Agent-Info =3B =3B =3B&nb= sp=3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B is set to TBD

 =3B =3B The following new AVPs are to be allocated from RADIUS Typ= e Code
 =3B =3B [= RFC2685<= /a>] space so that they are RADIUS ba= ckward compatible (AVP Code
 =3B =3B values between 0-255):

 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Feature-Vector =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B is set = to TBD
 =3B =3B =3B =3B MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix =3B =3B = =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B =3B is set to TBD

Draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated uses a "com= plex attribute" (for the MIP6-Agent-Info AVP) and hence it would have been = necessary to wait for the completion of http://www.ietf.org/internet-dra= fts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt in order to make use of it. As pointed out during th= e meeting there is also a problem with the usage of http://www.ietf.org/= internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-05.txt= when mapping these attributes into the Dia= meter AVP code space. This is subject for a different discussion. We allocated 2 of the 3 Diameter AVPs from = the RADIUS code space.
What is the consequence?
* Ma= pping an incoming Diameter message containing the MIP6-Feature-Vector and M= IP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVPs can be mapped to a RADIUS message easily (since t= he code space is the same). Without using the same code space one would hav= e to map one number to another one.
* =3B We are saving 2 values in the Dia= meter AVP code space but we are allocating 2 values in the RADIUS attribute= code space.
* Translation requires code changes for the= MIP6-Agent-Info AVP).
During the IETF#73 DIME meeting I suggested= to talk to folks implementing RADIUS-Diameter translation agents. While th= is helps in the longer term it will not help for this document.
So=2C any ideas on how we should move forwa= rd?
Ciao
Hannes
= --_2f705381-9d7a-4748-a068-abe0b943c8b5_-- --===============0351304527== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============0351304527==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 09:26:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86CA3A6AF7; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:26:23 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486CF3A6B3C for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:26:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aixMOm-S19qe for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:26:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D1C43A6AF7 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2008 17:26:15 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2008 18:26:15 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/o3/Qewujo7xWd9CyQd+UIRh+hICwWlEMeaSQndI Q3xVtWBoV+iz03 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: "'Bernard Aboba'" , "Tschofenig, Hannes \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" , , References: Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <013801c953d9$ee5694b0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AclT1+ffPE86I2IVQ6qmlzsDKAv3jQAAZC8g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.71 Cc: charliep@wichorus.com, "Korhonen, Jouni \(NSN - FI/Espoo\)" , pasi.eronen@nokia.com, julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: Re: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] the case of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Bernard, > Assuming that you don't want to create a dependency between this document and either the RADIUS MIPv6 document or the Extended Attributes document, then the choices are limited. That's certainly something we want to avoid. > You can try to rationalize the RADIUS attributes defined in the RADIUS MIPv6 document with the ones you define in this document, but there is no guarantee that this will succeed. We will try to harmonize RADIUS MIPv6 with the Diameter integrated/split document. RADIUS MIPv6 clearly needs more work. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 14:04:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3113A6B25; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:04:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9224A3A6B25 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:04:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.691 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKpu70iyfw6F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:04:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 731773A6A65 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:04:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2008 22:04:36 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp060) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2008 23:04:36 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/IrqwB49TIeno0q6+LIxPjjGj1IBV0lDeREohel2 EZ0F2Ijaij8dQR From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:04:37 +0200 Message-ID: <018701c95400$d02ca610$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AclT/8wTj+gUdNFmSwqerj/fkKf1zQ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.74 Subject: [Dime] IETF#73 Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Here are the meeting minutes from IETF#73: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/dime.txt The slides can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 16:36:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EBA3A686A; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:36:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52F23A6831 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:36:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31bOHayWJFOr for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E23A3A6887 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:35:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 97186 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2008 00:35:43 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IhMjJKEjJAjnrxgZC8DM5tt3O3I0SttnUBPI5NsNqYMkBIF0vEpCdrr7eFKtNGt7EJMbaXwTgacJk9v7f6EaYv+WF8gVb/oE1XlxwxGLynC2utGaXhb1iJDnZfKZJJzISTFFI6l6reFTG1FHxHetgDSppNEPC3pvfFjdB8cpMQ8= ; Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.100?) (tom.taylor@72.140.46.24 with plain) by smtp100.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2008 00:35:43 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: CBxESlgVM1mW.xC.cF202nuxApfUPeu7VlRduV1T7nSmo9ZMiaXFTsl5if1PJvMWIQ-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <493482DF.9070901@rogers.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:35:43 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hannes Tschofenig References: <018701c95400$d02ca610$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> In-Reply-To: <018701c95400$d02ca610$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] IETF#73 Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org That RFC reference in the routing discussion should be RFC 5113, not RFC 5103. Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Here are the meeting minutes from IETF#73: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/dime.txt > > The slides can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 23:22:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089E13A691D; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E0A3A691D for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBQ3LRp2PsfE for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6513A680F for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27LtDR014069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:21:55 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27LtnZ002911 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:21:55 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.17]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:21:55 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:22:01 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: M-bit: MAY column Thread-Index: AclUTqs4r2GT6TwST8yyX1Ne24m2Ig== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 07:21:55.0353 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7A48890:01C9544E] Subject: [Dime] M-bit: MAY column X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org During the IETF#73 DIME meeting I asked the folks in the room whether they would want to remove the MAY column usage for the M-bit. The result: 10 hands in favour, none opposed. I would like to confirm this decision on the mailing list. Please let me know if you have a different opinion. Deadline: 9th December 2008 _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 23:23:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353103A6AEA; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:23:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBC63A6AEA for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:23:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rQM6CWQ+OmF for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9313A691D for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27MwgH016310 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:22:58 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27Mw8U025081 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:22:58 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.17]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:22:58 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:23:04 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit Thread-Index: AclUTtDP7HbKUZEDT7G2Rfu/dveZRg== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 07:22:58.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD2C8900:01C9544E] Subject: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org After we had the IETF#73 DIME meeting a few of us met at AAA doctors Directorate lunch. What is the AAA doctors directorate? See here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/wiki/AaaDoctors While there was agreement about the discussions regarding the M-bit during the DIME meeting the question was raised how to implement the following functionality: Imagine that a Diameter server wants to convey an AVP with packet filters to the Diameter client. The Diameter client, however, is unable to fulfill the request. This can happen for multiple reasons. For example, the packet filter states that packets with router alert options have to be dropped but the firewalling module at the Diameter client does not have the capability to filter router alert options. Another example would be that the conflict resolution mechanism overrides the policies that are being provided by the Diameter server and hence the rules are not enforced. When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements regarding the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error message is returned. So, here are my questions: * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? * If so, where should it be added? Ciao Hannes PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter application to be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the M-bit as we define it today is very different from what is being asked here. We define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 1 23:56:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0645728C103; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0CC28C103 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGbwA+DlH03J for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B072828C0F9 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:56:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27uQ0L019714 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:56:26 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB27uP6n016481 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:56:26 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.17]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:56:15 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:56:21 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Mobile and Wireless Networks Security 2009 Thread-Index: AclT22cICN/dd2XHQtKnaB/eKedHqwAd3vGQ From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 07:56:15.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[73A91790:01C95453] Subject: [Dime] Mobile and Wireless Networks Security 2009 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I know that some of you work in the research environment and hence you might find this conference interesting. Papers about AAA related topics are welcome. ----------------------- *****Apologies if you received multiple copies of the call for papers 2^nd International Workshop on Mobile and Wireless Networks Security (MWNS'09) http://www.networking-2009.org/calls/mwns.html *MWNS'09* is the *second event* in the series of international workshops on "Mobile and Wireless Networks Security", following the highly successful MWNS workshop in Singapore 2008. This year the workshop will be organized on *May 15, 2008*, as a *full-day event* on the last day of the IFIP conference Networking 2009 which will be held May 11-15, 2009, in Aachen, Germany. Call for Papers Network security being for many years addressed in wired networks, it becomes more and more challenging in mobile and wireless networks since those environments are widely open and accessible. In this context, mobile and wireless terminals and communication are more vulnerable than wired terminals and networks to different attacks such as denial of service, man in the middle, hijacking, spoofing, etc. In addition, they have less resources which is a real problem in security solution design. This poses new challenges in a sense that we need to design secure and robust solution and light enough to be supported by those wireless and mobile terminals and communications. Different wireless and mobile technologies are available today such as RFID, Wifi, Wimax, 3G, etc promising the deployment of a variety of services for mobile users. However, security needs to be robust enough in order for the user to trust the services offered on top of those technologies. Other technologies such as ad hoc or sensor networks are also very interesting for new type of services, but they also need to prove that security level is high enough to support user services. Authors are invited to submit work on issues related to, but not limited by, the following list of topics: * Security in wireless PAN, LAN, MAN, RAN * Security in IP Mobility networks * Security in Mobile P2P * Security policies and models * Privacy, anonymity, and tracking * AAA - Authentication, Authorisation, Accounting * Security in Mobile networks (2G, 3G, 4G, ...) * Security in ad hoc networks * Security in sensor/RFID networks * Identity management * Security of wireless and mobile terminals (smart cards, biometry, ...) Keynote Speaker The first MWNS workshop in Singapore we welcomed *Charles Perkins* who gave us a very interesting talk on mesh wireless networks, this year for MWNS 2009 we are welcoming *Hannes Tschofenig* who is an active fellow at the IETF. He is Senior Standardization Specialist at Nokia Siemens Networks in Finland. Paper Submission Full papers are solicited in English to be submitted to *MWNS2009@gmail.com*, no more than *12 single-spaced pages*, each of which will be subject to a full peer review process. Submissions should already follow the author guidelines as specified below and must include: title, authors, affiliations, 100-word abstract, and a list of at most five keywords. The corresponding author should be identified, including name, position, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address. An electronic, PDF-based submission of papers is mandatory. The conference proceedings will be published as hard-copy and electronically by *Shaker Verlag Series* and will be available during the event. In preparing their manuscript, authors are obliged to follow the LNCS guidelines strictly and without exception, including the 12 page limit. The Springer template file is available in both Latex2e and Microsoft Word format. Post-conference journal publication of selected papers is under preparation. General Information The workshop will be organized on *May 15*, *2009*, as a full-day event on the last day of the IFIP conference Networking 2009 which will be held May 11-15, 2009, in Aachen, Germany. The registration for this workshop is handled within the framework of Networking 2009, see the registration site for further details. For further information please send an e-mail . _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 00:09:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA7F3A68D2; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:09:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488E63A68D2 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:09:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.73 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.869, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGX7IdSBvTv8 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:09:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B8F3A680F for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 00:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB289Z7l003313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:09:35 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (webmail.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB289Ug0021928 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:09:35 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.17]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:08:12 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:08:18 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Diameter QoS parameters Thread-Index: AclUVSKqDHj8/0xyTZSIYCbh2LKOCA== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 08:08:12.0441 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EEA8890:01C95455] Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS parameters X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org We got a lot of feedback on the Diameter QoS parameters document. Here is the document that was published before the last IETF meeting that was subject for discussion at IETF#73: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-07.tx t Version -07 already addresses some of the comments but there is more. The comments, as summarized during the IETF#73 DIME meeting, fall into four categories: * The parameters have to be encoded as Diameter AVPs We discussed this during the meeting and folks in the room concluded that the next draft version must use a Diameter AVP encoding. If you object please speak up. Deadline: 9th December 2008 * More description of the parameters is necessary Currently, the document includes a couple of references to other documents and assumes that the reader resolves these references and reads into the subject. It's a fair request to have the document more self contained. * The Excess Treatment parameter does not fit into this document but rather belongs into the QoS attribute draft. This was a comment Dan made in his AD review. It is a pretty uncontroversal issue and I believe Dan is right. * There were questions why some of the QoS parameters are actually in the document. From a historical point of view we have just copied all the parameters from the NSIS QSPEC document into this draft since we argued (back then) that we are not going to define our own QoS mechanisms and hence we would rely on the work done elsewhere in the IETF on QoS. The document lists all the parameters that have to be implemented as they belong to one QoS profile. Folks argued that parameters like "Path Latency", "Path Jitter", "Path PLR", "Path PER" are difficult to implement in today's hardware. That's a fair statement and the chairs are (quickly) trying to figure out what can be done in today's hardware (or in the foreseeable future) and will make a proposal to the list. In any case, your feedback regarding these issues is highly appreciated. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 02:23:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B893A6A82; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:23:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FA53A6A82 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:23:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ckauZlGjk74S for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from liberty.deployingradius.com (liberty.deployingradius.com [88.191.76.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EE323A67A1 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:23:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from Thor.gnb.quiconnect.net (alexander.quiconnect.net [213.30.156.62]) by liberty.deployingradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36E3E12343B6; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:23:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49350C84.7000008@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:23:00 +0100 From: Alan DeKok User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > So, here are my questions: > > * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? Yes, and yes. Another way of phrasing the requirement is that it is an enforcement bit. Setting the enforcement bit on the AVP means "reject the session if you cannot enforce the requirements of the AVP". Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 05:34:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4E03A6A82; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:34:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD973A6A82 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:34:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5KnYrso0k-B for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D243A69E3 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (smtp.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB2DXkBl027896; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:33:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:34:17 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" References: In-Reply-To: Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, > When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements regarding > the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set and > the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error message > is returned. > > So, here are my questions: > > * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? > > * If so, where should it be added? > Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism that there is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this mechanism be specified in the application requiring it ? Especially if you you want to convey more granular and context specific error messages/codes back to the server. In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify a well defined behavior in the doc. regards, victor > Ciao > Hannes > > PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several > reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter application to > be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the M-bit as we > define it today is very different from what is being asked here. We > define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate that > the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 05:41:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D8B3A6964; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FE228C192 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id InhqVTEujCMq for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:41:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B2A28C0ED for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 05:40:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:40:42 +0100 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:40:41 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026060DE7B5@ftrdmel2> In-Reply-To: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit Thread-index: AclUgtPVIGmBGbRnTi+dkOxoiaON+gAABkpQ References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 13:40:42.0751 (UTC) FILETIME=[923A40F0:01C95483] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, Victor, It was exactly my understanding. I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to describe all the possible erro= r cases in the Diameter base and/or Diameter aplication level. The specific= behavior of a given Diameter node will have to be anyway described in a sp= ecific document. In that case, the document will just say: Diameter node A will reject the s= ession if something is wrong..." Lionel > -----Message d'origine----- > De : dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De = > la part de Victor Fajardo > Envoy=E9 : mardi 2 d=E9cembre 2008 14:34 > =C0 : Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc : dime@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > = > Hi Hannes, > = > > When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements = > regarding = > > the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the = > flag set = > > and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error = > > message is returned. > > > > So, here are my questions: = > > > > * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? = > > > > * If so, where should it be added? = > > = > = > Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism = > that there is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this = > mechanism be specified in the application requiring it ? = > Especially if you you want to convey more granular and = > context specific error messages/codes back to the server. = > In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just = > specify a well defined behavior in the doc. > = > regards, > victor > = > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several = > > reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter = > application to = > > be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of = > the M-bit as = > > we define it today is very different from what is being = > asked here. We = > > define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate = > > that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > > = > = > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > = _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 10:03:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED0B53A6B29; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:03:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC133A6B29 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:03:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YeizXdcHYIhP for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954613A691A for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:03:48 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,702,1220241600"; d="scan'208";a="153073778" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2008 13:03:44 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2008 13:03:44 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:03:42 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AclUnVTHLQMe5L/JSjSWNkNXHc9YZgACpoKA From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Sun, Dong (Dong)" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] FW: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Congratulations to the editor for the approval of this document, and thanks to the DIME WG for supporting the process with advice and reviews. Dan -----Original Message----- From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:45 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: Internet Architecture Board; RFC Editor Subject: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application ' as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02.txt Technical Summary Command Codes and a new vendor-specific Application ID to be used in a vendor-specific new application, namely for the ITU-T Rec. Q.3303.3 - Rw interface used to send a request/responses for controlling the policy enforcement in a network element, as one of the recommendations of the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Working Group Summary This is an AD-sponsored individual submission. The document was presented and reviewed in the DIME WG, which recommended to run this document as an AD-sponsored contribution and submit it to IETF Last Call, followint the procedure described in RFC 3588. Document Quality The document went through an IETF Last Call, and received reviews from Dan Romascanu and Brian Carpenter (for GenART). Personnel Dan Romascanu is the shepherding Area Director. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 10:30:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F68B3A692B; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585243A692B for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KEXepyVls9N for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sonussf2.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8EE3A691A for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonussf2.sonusnet.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id mB2IU9VP016397; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:30:09 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:29:30 -0500 Message-ID: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD3F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit Thread-Index: AclUgpdjQUH24hKoTaGUNyPtUX+fJwAKDxvA References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> From: "Asveren, Tolga" To: "Victor Fajardo" , "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I agree that this is an application layer thing. IMHO it would be a major abuse to use any message header bits for this purpose. Thanks, Tolga > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Victor Fajardo > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:34 AM > To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > > Hi Hannes, > > > When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements regarding > > the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set and > > the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error message > > is returned. > > > > So, here are my questions: > > > > * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? > > > > * If so, where should it be added? > > > > Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism that there is > a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this mechanism be specified in the > application requiring it ? Especially if you you want to convey more > granular and context specific error messages/codes back to the server. > In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify a well > defined behavior in the doc. > > regards, > victor > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several > > reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter application to > > be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the M-bit as we > > define it today is very different from what is being asked here. We > > define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate that > > the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 12:26:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893A93A6BD5; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:31 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BA73A6B3D for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.87 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7SHpIsQ6RGxn for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 75AAD3A6BEA for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Dec 2008 20:26:20 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 02 Dec 2008 21:26:20 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18vIwMUu0sv7yzuiRk0VjICRh8TQWUwZp7EMM7DIo AN1ph/1Cw5cCZs From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: "'ext Alan DeKok'" References: <49350C84.7000008@deployingradius.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <000001c954bc$40391f40$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AclUZ/fYMxFZuYNSQx2NaijhQDgrVwAU0TxA In-Reply-To: <49350C84.7000008@deployingradius.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.71 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org >Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> So, here are my questions: >> >> * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? > > Yes, and yes. > > Another way of phrasing the requirement is that it is an >enforcement bit. Setting the enforcement bit on the AVP means >"reject the session if you cannot enforce the requirements of the AVP". > > Alan DeKok. That's a better way to phrase it. Thanks, Alan. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 12:26:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54D03A6BD5; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D07A3A6BF0 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.661 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2m7CC5gR76G for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C4E43A6BC1 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Dec 2008 20:26:22 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 02 Dec 2008 21:26:22 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18qNNhMJcUq8DyDkIl7oxTv2TGu4+cKIFa6h0DnB9 r3Kr3CWYOc+tfo From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: "'ext Victor Fajardo'" References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <000101c954bc$41cc1b50$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AclUgrUQd0DZ+65BRuWp0nVZ07eSvQAAJwIQ In-Reply-To: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.55 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org One can clearly define a new application for every new piece of functionality. No doubt. The idea in this specific case, however, was not to define a new application but rather to have support for it at the AVP level with a new flag. When we clarified the semantic of the M-bit we also lost some functionality, I believe. Now, my question was whether we are able to get some of this functionality back. Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] >Sent: 02 December, 2008 15:34 >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: dime@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > >Hi Hannes, > >> When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements >regarding >> the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set >> and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error >> message is returned. >> >> So, here are my questions: >> >> * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? >> >> * If so, where should it be added? >> > >Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism >that there is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this >mechanism be specified in the application requiring it ? >Especially if you you want to convey more granular and context >specific error messages/codes back to the server. >In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify >a well defined behavior in the doc. > >regards, >victor > >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several >> reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter >application to >> be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the >M-bit as >> we define it today is very different from what is being >asked here. We >> define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate >> that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 12:32:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC0E3A6BC1; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:32:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726813A6BC1 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:32:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d1po5z5UlB64 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:32:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sonussf2.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027F63A6B3D for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:32:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonussf2.sonusnet.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id mB2KWbGI003579; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:32:37 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:31:43 -0500 Message-ID: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD8F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <000101c954bc$41cc1b50$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit Thread-Index: AclUgrUQd0DZ+65BRuWp0nVZ07eSvQAAJwIQAA5P5vA= References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> <000101c954bc$41cc1b50$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> From: "Asveren, Tolga" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , "ext Victor Fajardo" Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, IMHO the functionality we lost is about understanding/taking action about an AVP. It never was about the outcome of the action AFAIK. M-bit marked as MAY just was telling that the sender can decide whether the receiver has to understand the AVP by setting/not-setting the M-bit. Thanks, Tolga > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Hannes Tschofenig > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:26 PM > To: 'ext Victor Fajardo' > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > > One can clearly define a new application for every new piece of > functionality. No doubt. > > The idea in this specific case, however, was not to define a new > application > but rather to have support for it at the AVP level with a new flag. > > When we clarified the semantic of the M-bit we also lost some > functionality, > I believe. > > Now, my question was whether we are able to get some of this functionality > back. > > Ciao > Hannes > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: ext Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] > >Sent: 02 December, 2008 15:34 > >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > >Cc: dime@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > > > >Hi Hannes, > > > >> When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements > >regarding > >> the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set > >> and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error > >> message is returned. > >> > >> So, here are my questions: > >> > >> * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? > >> > >> * If so, where should it be added? > >> > > > >Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism > >that there is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this > >mechanism be specified in the application requiring it ? > >Especially if you you want to convey more granular and context > >specific error messages/codes back to the server. > >In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify > >a well defined behavior in the doc. > > > >regards, > >victor > > > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > >> > >> PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several > >> reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter > >application to > >> be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the > >M-bit as > >> we define it today is very different from what is being > >asked here. We > >> define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate > >> that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> DiME mailing list > >> DiME@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 12:33:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3063A6BEF; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:13 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB603A6BF6 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZEEhqXJvjcmq for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 099F13A6BEF for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Dec 2008 20:26:24 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 02 Dec 2008 21:26:24 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18mSZ0Fjz4m8cr50ULerWQXfEH+o9Ki5d4KuDae5O ZwIZmz4OjrJea1 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: , References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026060DE7B5@ftrdmel2> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:26:19 +0200 Message-ID: <000201c954bc$43020340$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AclUgtPVIGmBGbRnTi+dkOxoiaON+gAABkpQAA31wsA= In-Reply-To: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026060DE7B5@ftrdmel2> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.5600000000000001 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Lionel is right. The Diameter Base specification would only provide a high-level error message in context of this new flag rather than a full list of possible error cases. Further information about the type of error could be provided in other documents. = Ciao Hannes = >-----Original Message----- >From: ext lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com = >[mailto:lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com] = >Sent: 02 December, 2008 15:41 >To: vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: dime@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit > >Hi Hannes, Victor, > >It was exactly my understanding. >I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to describe all the = >possible error cases in the Diameter base and/or Diameter = >aplication level. The specific behavior of a given Diameter = >node will have to be anyway described in a specific document. >In that case, the document will just say: Diameter node A will = >reject the session if something is wrong..." > >Lionel > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = >> de Victor Fajardo Envoy=E9 : mardi 2 d=E9cembre 2008 14:34 =C0 : = >Tschofenig, = >> Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Cc : dime@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Dime] "Fail = >> unless processed successfully" Bit >> = >> Hi Hannes, >> = >> > When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements >> regarding >> > the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the >> flag set >> > and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error = >> > message is returned. >> > >> > So, here are my questions: = >> > >> > * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? = >> > >> > * If so, where should it be added? = >> > = >> = >> Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism = >that there = >> is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this mechanism be = >specified in = >> the application requiring it ? >> Especially if you you want to convey more granular and context = >> specific error messages/codes back to the server. >> In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just = >specify a well = >> defined behavior in the doc. >> = >> regards, >> victor >> = >> > Ciao >> > Hannes >> > >> > PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several = >> > reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter >> application to >> > be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of >> the M-bit as >> > we define it today is very different from what is being >> asked here. We >> > define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate = >> > that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > DiME mailing list >> > DiME@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> > >> > >> > = >> = >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> = > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 13:12:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78DB28C1DA; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA4A28C1DA for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.213 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5HxkVQYVb9W for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FAF3A67B5 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (toshi17.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB2LBcsH032260; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:11:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <4935A4A9.7060603@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:12:09 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Asveren, Tolga" References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> <000101c954bc$41cc1b50$5a3ca20a@nsnintra.net> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD8F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD8F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I have the same opinion as Tolga. Additionally, its a little bit scary to me when we try to revive a feature/functionality that few seem to understand or care about. If we really want to revive it, we may not want to use yet another bit flag that has some similarities in meaning to the E-bit but has a very loose definition ... regards, victor > Hi Hannes, > > IMHO the functionality we lost is about understanding/taking action > about an AVP. It never was about the outcome of the action AFAIK. > > M-bit marked as MAY just was telling that the sender can decide whether > the receiver has to understand the AVP by setting/not-setting the M-bit. > > Thanks, > Tolga > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of > >> Hannes Tschofenig >> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:26 PM >> To: 'ext Victor Fajardo' >> Cc: dime@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit >> >> One can clearly define a new application for every new piece of >> functionality. No doubt. >> >> The idea in this specific case, however, was not to define a new >> application >> but rather to have support for it at the AVP level with a new flag. >> >> When we clarified the semantic of the M-bit we also lost some >> functionality, >> I believe. >> >> Now, my question was whether we are able to get some of this >> > functionality > >> back. >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ext Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] >>> Sent: 02 December, 2008 15:34 >>> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >>> Cc: dime@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit >>> >>> Hi Hannes, >>> >>> >>>> When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements >>>> >>> regarding >>> >>>> the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag >>>> > set > >>>> and the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error >>>> message is returned. >>>> >>>> So, here are my questions: >>>> >>>> * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? >>>> >>>> * If so, where should it be added? >>>> >>>> >>> Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism >>> that there is a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this >>> mechanism be specified in the application requiring it ? >>> Especially if you you want to convey more granular and context >>> specific error messages/codes back to the server. >>> In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify >>> a well defined behavior in the doc. >>> >>> regards, >>> victor >>> >>> >>>> Ciao >>>> Hannes >>>> >>>> PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several >>>> reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter >>>> >>> application to >>> >>>> be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the >>>> >>> M-bit as >>> >>>> we define it today is very different from what is being >>>> >>> asked here. We >>> >>>> define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate >>>> that the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> DiME mailing list >>>> DiME@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 13:12:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBD028C1DA; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CB73A67B5 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3j4AMlLV1MuA for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EDD28C1DA for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:12:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-114-66-140.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-114-66-140.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.66.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4B713991F; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:12:12 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: <4F82C98F-84FB-41CB-A36A-4AF2A9B10606@iki.fi> From: Jouni Korhonen To: "Asveren, Tolga" In-Reply-To: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD3F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:12:11 +0200 References: <49353959.10703@tari.toshiba.com> <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E701A2AD3F@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I would echo what Tolga/Lionel/Victor said. Cheers, Jouni On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Asveren, Tolga wrote: > I agree that this is an application layer thing. IMHO it would be a > major abuse to use any message header bits for this purpose. > > Thanks, > Tolga > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of >> Victor Fajardo >> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:34 AM >> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >> Cc: dime@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] "Fail unless processed successfully" Bit >> >> Hi Hannes, >> >>> When setting this flag for an AVP there are no requirements > regarding >>> the creation of a Diameter application. When an AVP has the flag set > and >>> the receiving end cannot process it successfully then an error > message >>> is returned. >>> >>> So, here are my questions: >>> >>> * Does my mail make sense to you? Is this a useful mechanism? >>> >>> * If so, where should it be added? >>> >> >> Is there a lot of application interested in such mechanism that there > is >> a need to generalize it ? Should'nt this mechanism be specified in >> the >> application requiring it ? Especially if you you want to convey more >> granular and context specific error messages/codes back to the >> server. >> In this case, we may not need an additional flag, just specify a well >> defined behavior in the doc. >> >> regards, >> victor >> >>> Ciao >>> Hannes >>> >>> PS: The M-bit cannot be used for this purpose because of several >>> reasons, including the fact that it requires a Diameter application > to >>> be created when AVPs have the M-bit set. The semantic of the M-bit > as we >>> define it today is very different from what is being asked here. We >>> define the M-bit as a way for the specification author to indicate > that >>> the receiving side has to implement a certain AVP. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DiME mailing list >>> DiME@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 15:33:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0992D3A6877; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:33:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65CE3A6877 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:33:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rr3YNDHgmePV for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:33:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30883A67DB for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:33:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilexp03.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-50.lucent.com [135.3.39.50]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id mB2NW5km019106; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:33:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from ILEXC2U01.ndc.lucent.com ([135.3.39.9]) by ilexp03.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:32:18 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:32:17 -0600 Message-ID: <09C9068466B79E4C938DC7737562404D0220C744@ILEXC2U01.ndc.lucent.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AclUnVTHLQMe5L/JSjSWNkNXHc9YZgACpoKAAAt3TMA= References: From: "Sun, Dong \(Dong\)" To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 23:32:18.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[378D4730:01C954D6] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Thanks you, Dan, Hannes and all for the help. Look forward to the new code from IANA to wrap up the ITU-T Rec and it is also right in time for an ETSI TISPAN spec! Dong -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:04 PM To: Sun, Dong (Dong) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: FW: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC Congratulations to the editor for the approval of this document, and thanks to the DIME WG for supporting the process with advice and reviews. Dan -----Original Message----- From: ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:45 PM To: IETF-Announce Cc: Internet Architecture Board; RFC Editor Subject: Document Action: 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application ' as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02.txt Technical Summary Command Codes and a new vendor-specific Application ID to be used in a vendor-specific new application, namely for the ITU-T Rec. Q.3303.3 - Rw interface used to send a request/responses for controlling the policy enforcement in a network element, as one of the recommendations of the International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). Working Group Summary This is an AD-sponsored individual submission. The document was presented and reviewed in the DIME WG, which recommended to run this document as an AD-sponsored contribution and submit it to IETF Last Call, followint the procedure described in RFC 3588. Document Quality The document went through an IETF Last Call, and received reviews from Dan Romascanu and Brian Carpenter (for GenART). Personnel Dan Romascanu is the shepherding Area Director. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 2 22:12:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2893A6838; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:12:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFBA3A6818 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:42:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K+Bgk8N3Rlso for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (jaguar.aricent.com [121.241.96.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6E03A67E1 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jaguar.aricent.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB35aZVQ032621 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:06:35 +0530 Received: from GUREXHT01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM (gurexht01.asian.ad.aricent.com [10.203.171.136]) by jaguar.aricent.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mB35aZvm032577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:06:35 +0530 Received: from GUREXMB02.asian.ad.aricent.com ([10.203.171.132]) by GUREXHT01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.136]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:12:36 +0530 From: Rajeev Jain To: "dime@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:12:48 +0530 Thread-Topic: To post to this list Thread-Index: AclVCfkviRck6lqISaGKpqn+ph6rYg== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dime] To post to this list X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0977674789==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --===============0977674789== Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C88602320A2009428E894E8EACF242872BEA5E7E66GUREXMB02ASIA_" --_000_C88602320A2009428E894E8EACF242872BEA5E7E66GUREXMB02ASIA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My email is rajeev2.jain@aricent.com Thanks & Regards Rajeev Jain A R I C E N T Mobile +91 9342250151 ________________________________ "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely = for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privi= leged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for = any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this m= essage in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you are not th= e intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited fro= m using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Ari= cent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of t= he information transmitted by this email including damage from virus." --_000_C88602320A2009428E894E8EACF242872BEA5E7E66GUREXMB02ASIA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My email is rajeev2.jain@aricent.com

 

Thanks & = Regards

Rajeev Jain

 

A R I C E N T

M= obile   +91 9342250151

 


"DISCLAIMER: This messa= ge is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the indi= vidual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential i= nformation and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have recei= ved this message in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you = are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly proh= ibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibil= ity for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted = by this email including damage from virus."
 --_000_C88602320A2009428E894E8EACF242872BEA5E7E66GUREXMB02ASIA_-- --===============0977674789== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============0977674789==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 3 00:25:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB193A6B25; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:25:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091FA3A6B25 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:25:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSLDzlXjTeql for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294A33A6814 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:25:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29AC1E038D for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:25:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18584-08 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:25:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchindia3.starentnetworks.com ([10.6.7.5]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:24:07 -0500 Received: from [10.6.7.67] ([10.6.7.67]) by exchindia3.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:54:02 +0530 Message-ID: <4936421B.9040609@starentnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:53:55 +0530 From: Sarkar Biplab User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dime@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x6D543EEE&op=index X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2008 08:24:02.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FD9BBA0:01C95520] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com Subject: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop ID X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1482571543==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --===============1482571543== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCB0A349823571A5D758D1C31" This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCB0A349823571A5D758D1C31 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040101050008030502090807" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040101050008030502090807 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, I have a query. I am unable to understand why is there a need to have Hop-by-Hop ID. I think the RFC should capture some text as to what is the purpose of this attribute. I think the tuple is sufficient to uniquely identify a message and its duplicates in the network. Can anyone please help me in explaining this? Thanks & Regards Biplab --------------040101050008030502090807 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All,

I have a query.

I am unable to understand why is there a need to have Hop-by-Hop ID. I think the RFC should capture some text as to what is the purpose of this attribute.

I think the tuple <End-to-End ID><Origin-Host> is sufficient to uniquely identify a message and its duplicates in the network.

Can anyone please help me in explaining this?

Thanks & Regards
Biplab
--------------040101050008030502090807-- --------------enigCB0A349823571A5D758D1C31 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJNkIf3rQBTW1UPu4RAtD0AKCXkBP7ZtrjCI7ibWHhKhE44UKiZwCeNvvz aQPN0OJEfcPPVkY5PjKeijY= =HkMi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCB0A349823571A5D758D1C31-- --===============1482571543== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============1482571543==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 3 02:42:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD6E3A6B4A; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 02:42:38 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E283A6AD1 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 02:42:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4mKeUveP2mue for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 02:42:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF9103A6B4A for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 02:42:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792DC1E0355 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21382-12 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:42:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from exchindia3.starentnetworks.com ([10.6.7.5]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:42:24 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:12:18 +0530 Message-ID: <69FADB84C90B1248A7DE59422771FA0C096925B6@exchindia3.starentnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <4936421B.9040609@starentnetworks.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop ID Thread-Index: AclVINAfb3/Mz0upTrOfMWn8qJiEkgAEtCfA References: <4936421B.9040609@starentnetworks.com> From: "Gowda, Avinash" To: "Sarkar, Biplab" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2008 10:42:24.0425 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3F10190:01C95533] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com Subject: Re: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop ID X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1616288788==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1616288788== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C95533.D0A484D5" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95533.D0A484D5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Biplab, =20 In case of agents Hop-By-Hop identifier is needed. In agents this field will be saved and replaced with unique value and will be forwarded to the next hop available. So in general Hop-By-Hop Id field will be helpful in message routing. And also based on this transaction states will be maintained.=20 =20 But in case of End-to-End Identifier, it cannot be modified by the agents and it's used along with origin host to identify the duplication of messages. =20 Please refer RFC3588 Sections 2.8 and 6.1.8 =20 So I think both E-t-E and H-b-H ids are needed.=20 =20 Please comment on this. =20 Thanks, Avinash Gowda ________________________________ From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sarkar Biplab Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:54 PM To: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] Hop-by-Hop ID =20 Hello All, I have a query. I am unable to understand why is there a need to have Hop-by-Hop ID. I think the RFC should capture some text as to what is the purpose of this attribute. I think the tuple is sufficient to uniquely identify a message and its duplicates in the network. Can anyone please help me in explaining this? Thanks & Regards Biplab ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95533.D0A484D5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Biplab,

 

In case of agents Hop-By-Hop = identifier is needed. In agents this field will be saved and replaced with unique = value and will be forwarded to the next hop available. So in general = Hop-By-Hop Id field will be helpful in message routing. And also based on this = transaction states will be maintained.

 

But in case of End-to-End = Identifier, it cannot be modified by the agents and it’s used along with origin = host to identify the duplication of messages.

 

Please refer RFC3588 Sections 2.8 = and 6.1.8

 

So I think both E-t-E and H-b-H = ids are needed.

 

Please comment on = this.

 

Thanks,

Avinash Gowda

From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Sarkar Biplab
Sent: Wednesday, December = 03, 2008 1:54 PM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] = Hop-by-Hop ID

 

Hello All,

I have a query.

I am unable to understand why is there a need to have Hop-by-Hop ID. I = think the RFC should capture some text as to what is the purpose of this = attribute.

I think the tuple <End-to-End ID><Origin-Host> is sufficient = to uniquely identify a message and its duplicates in the network.

Can anyone please help me in explaining this?

Thanks & Regards
Biplab

------_=_NextPart_001_01C95533.D0A484D5-- --===============1616288788== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============1616288788==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 4 12:55:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7329C3A6A3B; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:55:58 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1473A6A3B for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:55:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkCmaj8DmmRt for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0E93A69FD for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:55:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB4KtASA057177; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:55:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:55:47 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "dime@ietf.org" , Mark Jones , MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Mark/Lionel, Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to clarify the purpose of the doc: "This document defines the assigned values of the command codes used in these applications." * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application specifies the following command pairs:" to: "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of command code values for the following command pairs:" * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application specifies the following command pair:" to: "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the command code values for the following command pairs:" * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA Considerations section of that document details the assignment criteria. Values ..." to: "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. Sec 11, IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. Values ..." * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? If so, does it need to fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need to mention that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code allocation process. regards, victor _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 09:06:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31FD3A67F1; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1953A67F1 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:06:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+nDr9Y71O7S for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307203A67BD for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:06:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:06:10 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: Victor Fajardo , "dime@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:06:09 -0500 Thread-Topic: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUtGu4UZ9qbkcTbO4UtSs8AJzJwDAtwIg Message-ID: References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Thanks for the review, Victor. Responses/Comments inline. I'll incorporate your changes into the -01 version and publish shortly. > -----Original Message----- > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] > Sent: December 4, 2008 15:56 > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > Subject: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > Hi Mark/Lionel, > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to clarify the > purpose of the doc: > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command > codes used in > these applications." > Ok. > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application specifies the > following command pairs:" > > to: > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of command > code values for > the following command pairs:" > Ok > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application specifies the > following command pair:" > > to: > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the > command code values for > the following command pairs:" > Ok > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA Considerations > section of that document details the assignment criteria. Values ..." > > to: > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. Sec 11, > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. > Values ..." > Ok but would prefer "Section" instead of "Sec". > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? If so, does > it need to > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need to mention > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code allocation > process. > My understanding is that IANA must follow the rules in 3588 until 3588bis is ratified. That unfortunately means that the 3GPP S6a/S13 values will be taken from the IETF range as proposed in 3588bis but I see no means to give any alternative guidance to IANA. Thanks Mark _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 11:18:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8993A6A9D; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:18:11 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACD628C12D for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:18:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+YvmnbQBL6e for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:18:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B524F3A679F for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:18:08 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,736,1220241600"; d="scan'208";a="144720202" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2008 14:18:02 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2008 14:18:02 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUrRa5Z+7ZO3CQvOEVHxrAxjaVgDFqs/Q References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Victor Fajardo" , , "Mark Jones" , "MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS" Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Victor, What is your recommendation of behalf of DIME? Assuming that the comments you made are resolved is the document at the appropriate quality level to be undertaken as an AD-sponsored document? Any other opinions from other DIME WG participants? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Victor Fajardo > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:56 PM > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > Hi Mark/Lionel, > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to > clarify the purpose of the doc: > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command > codes used in these applications." > > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application specifies the > following command pairs:" > > to: > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition > of command > code values for > the following command pairs:" > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application specifies the > following command pair:" > > to: > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the > command code values for > the following command pairs:" > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA Considerations > section of that document details the assignment criteria. Values ..." > > to: > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. Sec 11, > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. > Values ..." > > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? If > so, does > it need to > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need to mention > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code allocation > process. > > > regards, > victor > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 11:19:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9153A6A9E; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:19:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90C43A6A9E for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:19:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N7og03SdpV+p for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:19:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD933A6A8F for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:19:32 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,736,1220241600"; d="scan'208";a="153735354" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2008 14:19:27 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2008 14:19:26 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:19:25 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUtGu4UZ9qbkcTbO4UtSs8AJzJwDAtwIgAAUCtUA= References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Mark Jones" , "Victor Fajardo" , Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Mark, Do not forget that in order to complete the submission process you need to find a proto-shepherd, and the shepherd needs to submit a proto write-up. Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Jones > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:06 PM > To: Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > Thanks for the review, Victor. > > Responses/Comments inline. I'll incorporate your changes into > the -01 version and publish shortly. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] > > Sent: December 4, 2008 15:56 > > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > > Subject: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > > Hi Mark/Lionel, > > > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: > > > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to > clarify the > > purpose of the doc: > > > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command > codes used > > in these applications." > > > > Ok. > > > > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application specifies the > > following command pairs:" > > > > to: > > > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition > of command > > code values for > > the following command pairs:" > > > > Ok > > > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application > specifies the > > following command pair:" > > > > to: > > > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the > > command code values for > > the following command pairs:" > > > > Ok > > > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: > > > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > been created > > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA > Considerations > > section of that document details the assignment criteria. > Values ..." > > > > to: > > > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > been created > > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. Sec 11, > > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. > > Values ..." > > > > Ok but would prefer "Section" instead of "Sec". > > > > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? > If so, does > > it need to > > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need > to mention > > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? > > > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code > allocation > > process. > > > > My understanding is that IANA must follow the rules in 3588 > until 3588bis is ratified. That unfortunately means that the > 3GPP S6a/S13 values will be taken from the IETF range as > proposed in 3588bis but I see no means to give any > alternative guidance to IANA. > > Thanks > Mark > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 8 13:26:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E63F3A6823; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:26:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89823A6823 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:26:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jx9-cBBOj0xo for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:26:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDF53A66B4 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB8LOoX7009257; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:24:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <493D901A.2040908@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:22:34 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Dan, > Victor, > > What is your recommendation of behalf of DIME? I think the document can move forward under AD-sponsorship. > Assuming that the > comments you made are resolved is the document at the appropriate > quality level to be undertaken as an AD-sponsored document? > Yes I believe so. regards, victor > Any other opinions from other DIME WG participants? > > Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Victor Fajardo >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:56 PM >> To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS >> Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 >> >> Hi Mark/Lionel, >> >> Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: >> >> * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to >> clarify the purpose of the doc: >> >> "This document defines the assigned values of the command >> codes used in these applications." >> >> >> * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: >> >> "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application specifies the >> following command pairs:" >> >> to: >> >> "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition >> of command >> code values for >> the following command pairs:" >> >> >> * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: >> >> "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application specifies the >> following command pair:" >> >> to: >> >> "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the >> command code values for >> the following command pairs:" >> >> >> * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: >> >> "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created >> and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA Considerations >> section of that document details the assignment criteria. Values ..." >> >> to: >> >> "This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created >> and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. Sec 11, >> IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. >> Values ..." >> >> >> * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? If >> so, does >> it need to >> fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need to mention >> that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? >> >> As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code allocation >> process. >> >> >> regards, >> victor >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 9 06:16:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D475728C158; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:16:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AA828C158 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:16:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Hpa+aHjd-kM for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8146528C153 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:16:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:15:57 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Victor Fajardo , "dime@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:15:55 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUtGu4UZ9qbkcTbO4UtSs8AJzJwDAtwIgAAUCtUAAJ5u4MA== Message-ID: References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: December 8, 2008 14:19 > To: Mark Jones; Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > Mark, > > Do not forget that in order to complete the submission > process you need > to find a proto-shepherd, and the shepherd needs to submit a proto > write-up. > Understood, Dan. A draft PROTO write-up is being prepared by the authors while we continue the search for a doc shepherd. Thanks Mark > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Mark Jones > > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:06 PM > > To: Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > > Thanks for the review, Victor. > > > > Responses/Comments inline. I'll incorporate your changes into > > the -01 version and publish shortly. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] > > > Sent: December 4, 2008 15:56 > > > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > > > Subject: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > > > > Hi Mark/Lionel, > > > > > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: > > > > > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to > > clarify the > > > purpose of the doc: > > > > > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command > > codes used > > > in these applications." > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > > > > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application > specifies the > > > following command pairs:" > > > > > > to: > > > > > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition > > of command > > > code values for > > > the following command pairs:" > > > > > > > Ok > > > > > > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: > > > > > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application > > specifies the > > > following command pair:" > > > > > > to: > > > > > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the > > > command code values for > > > the following command pairs:" > > > > > > > Ok > > > > > > > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: > > > > > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > > been created > > > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA > > Considerations > > > section of that document details the assignment criteria. > > Values ..." > > > > > > to: > > > > > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > > been created > > > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base > [RFC3588]. Sec 11, > > > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment criteria. > > > Values ..." > > > > > > > Ok but would prefer "Section" instead of "Sec". > > > > > > > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? > > If so, does > > > it need to > > > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need > > to mention > > > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? > > > > > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code > > allocation > > > process. > > > > > > > My understanding is that IANA must follow the rules in 3588 > > until 3588bis is ratified. That unfortunately means that the > > 3GPP S6a/S13 values will be taken from the IETF range as > > proposed in 3588bis but I see no means to give any > > alternative guidance to IANA. > > > > Thanks > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > > DiME mailing list > > DiME@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 9 06:19:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F573A687A; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:19:34 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43593A687A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:19:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.944, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87NxkKD-Qzsq for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CEF3A6870 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:19:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9EJGjZ028886 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:19:16 +0100 Received: from demuexc024.nsn-intra.net (demuexc024.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.11]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB9EJCLV012747; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:19:15 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.17]) by demuexc024.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:19:11 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:19:21 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUtGu4UZ9qbkcTbO4UtSs8AJzJwDAtwIgAAUCtUAAJ5u4MAAAPK3Q References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Mark Jones" , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "Victor Fajardo" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2008 14:19:11.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B54AF30:01C95A09] Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I will do the shepherd. >-----Original Message----- >From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of ext Mark Jones >Sent: 09 December, 2008 16:16 >To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> Sent: December 8, 2008 14:19 >> To: Mark Jones; Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 >> >> Mark, >> >> Do not forget that in order to complete the submission process you >> need to find a proto-shepherd, and the shepherd needs to submit a >> proto write-up. >> > >Understood, Dan. A draft PROTO write-up is being prepared by >the authors while we continue the search for a doc shepherd. > >Thanks >Mark > > > >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] >On Behalf >> > Of Mark Jones >> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:06 PM >> > To: Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org >> > Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 >> > >> > Thanks for the review, Victor. >> > >> > Responses/Comments inline. I'll incorporate your changes into the >> > -01 version and publish shortly. >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] >> > > Sent: December 4, 2008 15:56 >> > > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS >> > > Subject: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 >> > > >> > > Hi Mark/Lionel, >> > > >> > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: >> > > >> > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to >> > clarify the >> > > purpose of the doc: >> > > >> > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command >> > codes used >> > > in these applications." >> > > >> > >> > Ok. >> > >> > > >> > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: >> > > >> > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application >> specifies the >> > > following command pairs:" >> > > >> > > to: >> > > >> > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition >> > of command >> > > code values for >> > > the following command pairs:" >> > > >> > >> > Ok >> > >> > > >> > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: >> > > >> > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application >> > specifies the >> > > following command pair:" >> > > >> > > to: >> > > >> > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the >definition of the >> > > command code values for the following command pairs:" >> > > >> > >> > Ok >> > >> > > >> > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: >> > > >> > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have >> > been created >> > > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA >> > Considerations >> > > section of that document details the assignment criteria. >> > Values ..." >> > > >> > > to: >> > > >> > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have >> > been created >> > > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base >> [RFC3588]. Sec 11, >> > > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment >criteria. >> > > Values ..." >> > > >> > >> > Ok but would prefer "Section" instead of "Sec". >> > >> > > >> > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? >> > If so, does >> > > it need to >> > > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need >> > to mention >> > > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? >> > > >> > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code >> > allocation >> > > process. >> > > >> > >> > My understanding is that IANA must follow the rules in 3588 until >> > 3588bis is ratified. That unfortunately means that the >3GPP S6a/S13 >> > values will be taken from the IETF range as proposed in >3588bis but >> > I see no means to give any alternative guidance to IANA. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Mark >> > _______________________________________________ >> > DiME mailing list >> > DiME@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >_______________________________________________ >DiME mailing list >DiME@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 9 06:22:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999A93A687A; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:22:20 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7AB3A687A for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:22:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h8sRqfUA5VV0 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C55D3A6870 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:22:12 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:22:11 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUtGu4UZ9qbkcTbO4UtSs8AJzJwDAtwIgAAUCtUAAJ5u4MAAAPK3QAAAL34A= Message-ID: References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) > [mailto:hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com] > Sent: December 9, 2008 09:19 > To: Mark Jones; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > I will do the shepherd. > Thanks Hannes. Very much appreciated. Regards Mark > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On > >Behalf Of ext Mark Jones > >Sent: 09 December, 2008 16:16 > >To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf > >> Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > >> Sent: December 8, 2008 14:19 > >> To: Mark Jones; Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > >> > >> Mark, > >> > >> Do not forget that in order to complete the submission process you > >> need to find a proto-shepherd, and the shepherd needs to submit a > >> proto write-up. > >> > > > >Understood, Dan. A draft PROTO write-up is being prepared by > >the authors while we continue the search for a doc shepherd. > > > >Thanks > >Mark > > > > > > > >> Thanks and Regards, > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] > >On Behalf > >> > Of Mark Jones > >> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 7:06 PM > >> > To: Victor Fajardo; dime@ietf.org > >> > Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of > draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > >> > > >> > Thanks for the review, Victor. > >> > > >> > Responses/Comments inline. I'll incorporate your changes into the > >> > -01 version and publish shortly. > >> > > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] > >> > > Sent: December 4, 2008 15:56 > >> > > To: dime@ietf.org; Mark Jones; MORAND Lionel RD-CORE-ISS > >> > > Subject: Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > >> > > > >> > > Hi Mark/Lionel, > >> > > > >> > > Comments on draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00: > >> > > > >> > > * Maybe add the following sentence to the introduction to > >> > clarify the > >> > > purpose of the doc: > >> > > > >> > > "This document defines the assigned values of the command > >> > codes used > >> > > in these applications." > >> > > > >> > > >> > Ok. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > * Change 1st paragraph of Sec 3 from: > >> > > > >> > > "As described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S6a application > >> specifies the > >> > > following command pairs:" > >> > > > >> > > to: > >> > > > >> > > "3GPP S6a application in [TS29.272] requires the definition > >> > of command > >> > > code values for > >> > > the following command pairs:" > >> > > > >> > > >> > Ok > >> > > >> > > > >> > > * Change 2nd paragraph of Sec 3 from: > >> > > > >> > > "Also described in [TS29.272], the 3GPP S13 application > >> > specifies the > >> > > following command pair:" > >> > > > >> > > to: > >> > > > >> > > "3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the > >definition of the > >> > > command code values for the following command pairs:" > >> > > > >> > > >> > Ok > >> > > >> > > > >> > > * Change 2nd paragraph of the IANA considerations from: > >> > > > >> > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > >> > been created > >> > > and defined in the Diameter Base [RFC3588]. The IANA > >> > Considerations > >> > > section of that document details the assignment criteria. > >> > Values ..." > >> > > > >> > > to: > >> > > > >> > > "This document defines values in the namespaces that have > >> > been created > >> > > and defined in Sec 11.2.1 of the Diameter Base > >> [RFC3588]. Sec 11, > >> > > IANA Considerations of [RFC3588] details the assignment > >criteria. > >> > > Values ..." > >> > > > >> > > >> > Ok but would prefer "Section" instead of "Sec". > >> > > >> > > > >> > > * Are the values intended to forward compatible with bis ? > >> > If so, does > >> > > it need to > >> > > fall in the 0x800000 - 0xfffffd range ? If so, do we need > >> > to mention > >> > > that in the IANA actions (since this is absent in 3588) ? > >> > > > >> > > As it is, the document complies with the 3588 command code > >> > allocation > >> > > process. > >> > > > >> > > >> > My understanding is that IANA must follow the rules in 3588 until > >> > 3588bis is ratified. That unfortunately means that the > >3GPP S6a/S13 > >> > values will be taken from the IETF range as proposed in > >3588bis but > >> > I see no means to give any alternative guidance to IANA. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Mark > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > DiME mailing list > >> > DiME@ietf.org > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> DiME mailing list > >> DiME@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >DiME mailing list > >DiME@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 9 18:01:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091903A69A3; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:01:47 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33583A69A3 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uTDcDiedxl8X for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:01:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582503A68D3 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:01:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by QMTA07.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id pCgy1a00H0lTkoCA7E1f3j; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:01:40 +0000 Received: from gwzPC ([124.120.216.170]) by OMTA04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id pE1J1a00J3h9y908QE1Pph; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:01:37 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:00:42 +0700 Message-ID: <000101c95a6b$27e37b70$77aa7250$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclWUrRa5Z+7ZO3CQvOEVHxrAxjaVgDFqs/QAEBIWrA= Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org > Victor, > > What is your recommendation of behalf of DIME? Assuming that the > comments you made are resolved is the document at the appropriate > quality level to be undertaken as an AD-sponsored document? > > Any other opinions from other DIME WG participants? Actually, I liked the draft better w/o Victor's changes, which in one case at least introduce linguistic inaccuracy ("3GPP S13 application in [TS29.272] requires the definition of the command code values for the following command pairs": there is only one command code pair following). In any case, the doc looks fine to me. ... _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 10 04:55:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182213A6B9F; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:55:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2233A6B97 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:55:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NfU7Ax-WLnwu for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCA43A63CB for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:54:59 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: Glen Zorn , "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:54:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclWUrRa5Z+7ZO3CQvOEVHxrAxjaVgDFqs/QAEBIWrAAFlIv8A== Message-ID: References: <493843D3.1020902@tari.toshiba.com> <000101c95a6b$27e37b70$77aa7250$@net> In-Reply-To: <000101c95a6b$27e37b70$77aa7250$@net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Thanks for the review Glen. I'll fix the linguistic inaccuracy. Regards Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net] > Sent: December 9, 2008 21:01 > To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)' > Cc: dime@ietf.org; 'Victor Fajardo'; Mark Jones; 'MORAND > Lionel RD-CORE-ISS' > Subject: RE: [Dime] Review of draft-jones-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > Victor, > > > > What is your recommendation of behalf of DIME? Assuming that the > > comments you made are resolved is the document at the appropriate > > quality level to be undertaken as an AD-sponsored document? > > > > Any other opinions from other DIME WG participants? > > Actually, I liked the draft better w/o Victor's changes, > which in one case > at least introduce linguistic inaccuracy ("3GPP S13 application in > [TS29.272] requires the definition of the command code values for the > following command pairs": there is only one command code pair > following). > In any case, the doc looks fine to me. > > ... > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 11 09:15:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B1A28C1BA; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:15:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 821633A6C3E; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Base Protocol Author(s) : V. Fajardo, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt Pages : 160 Date : 2008-12-11 The Diameter base protocol is intended to provide an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as network access or IP mobility. Diameter is also intended to work in both local Authentication, Authorization & Accounting and roaming situations. This document specifies the message format, transport, error reporting, accounting and security services to be used by all Diameter applications. The Diameter base application needs to be supported by all Diameter implementations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-11091218.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 11 09:38:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971EB28C108; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:38:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8895A28C108; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:38:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbI6mNl4o2yO; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E6828C104; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mail.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBBHb1lJ044284; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:37:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <49414FF5.3020904@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:37:57 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org References: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> Cc: dime@ietf.org, i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Changes in this revision includes: - CER/CEA protection via TLS. See ML thread on "Options for securing CER/CEA" * Also updated peer discovery for peers that support TLS ports. - Additional text on processing answers with errors (from AAA-DOCTORS discussion) - Reverted Auth-Session-State default to STATE_MAINTAINED. (Discussion on draft-14 changes) Open issues: - There maybe a need to increment the version number in the diameter header. Any comments ? regards, victor > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Diameter Base Protocol > Author(s) : V. Fajardo, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt > Pages : 160 > Date : 2008-12-11 > > The Diameter base protocol is intended to provide an Authentication, > Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as > network access or IP mobility. Diameter is also intended to work in > both local Authentication, Authorization & Accounting and roaming > situations. This document specifies the message format, transport, > error reporting, accounting and security services to be used by all > Diameter applications. The Diameter base application needs to be > supported by all Diameter implementations. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 11 18:00:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D563A6A74; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:00:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457E63A6A74 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:00:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nPtkCZeuFM-v for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [133.243.3.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251A93A69B1 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC1ujte013974; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC1ujuT002363; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC1ujro002360; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.nict.go.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AF844CE; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.164] (5gou2f-dhcp04.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.164]) by mail1.nict.go.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299CD441D; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4941C4DB.9020607@nict.go.jp> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:43 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Victor Fajardo References: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> <49414FF5.3020904@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: <49414FF5.3020904@tari.toshiba.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hello Victor, I have a couple of remarks on the new version, if you don't mind: 1) Sorry, I am not very familiar with NAPTR mechanism, but the following change in section 5.2 seems odd to me: This specification defines D2T for TCP and *TCP,* D2S for SCTP. *SCTP and D2L for TLS.* = Because I believe that TLS runs over SCTP or TCP, I believe you would need two different records? Or do you assume that TLS is only run over TCP? In that case the clarification is needed. Remark: the same problem appears in next paragraph with **'_diameter._tls'.realm **Remark: the IANA requirement section (11.5 and 11.6) also considers TLS as a transport protocol at the same level as TCP and SCTP, whereas TLS runs over TCP or SCTP. 2) This is not important, there are some typo in the new paragraph about 7. Error Handling Thank you, Best regards, Sebastien. Victor Fajardo a =E9crit : > Changes in this revision includes: > > - CER/CEA protection via TLS. See ML thread on "Options for securing > CER/CEA" > * Also updated peer discovery for peers that support TLS ports. > > - Additional text on processing answers with errors (from AAA-DOCTORS > discussion) > > - Reverted Auth-Session-State default to STATE_MAINTAINED. (Discussion > on draft-14 changes) > > Open issues: > > - There maybe a need to increment the version number in the diameter > header. Any comments ? > > regards, > victor > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions >> Working Group of the IETF. >> >> >> Title : Diameter Base Protocol >> Author(s) : V. Fajardo, et al. >> Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt >> Pages : 160 >> Date : 2008-12-11 >> >> The Diameter base protocol is intended to provide an Authentication, >> Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as >> network access or IP mobility. Diameter is also intended to work in >> both local Authentication, Authorization & Accounting and roaming >> situations. This document specifies the message format, transport, >> error reporting, accounting and security services to be used by all >> Diameter applications. The Diameter base application needs to be >> supported by all Diameter implementations. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. >> = >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> = > > _______________________________________________ > DiME mailing list > DiME@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime > -- = Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 11 18:23:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6253B3A6AA6; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:23:06 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52C028C105 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:23:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FjV0jUT4NBqm for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0173A67EA for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mgw.toshibaamericaresearch.com [165.254.55.12]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBC2Lxvs049120; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:21:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <4941CB00.303@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:22:56 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sebastien Decugis References: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> <49414FF5.3020904@tari.toshiba.com> <4941C4DB.9020607@nict.go.jp> In-Reply-To: <4941C4DB.9020607@nict.go.jp> Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Sebastien, > Hello Victor, > > I have a couple of remarks on the new version, if you don't mind: > > 1) Sorry, I am not very familiar with NAPTR mechanism, but the following > change in section 5.2 seems odd to me: > > This specification defines > D2T for TCP and *TCP,* D2S for SCTP. *SCTP and D2L for TLS.* = > > > Because I believe that TLS runs over SCTP or TCP, I believe you would > need two different records? Or do you assume that TLS is only run over > TCP? Only TCP for practical reasons. We can clarify this. > In that case the clarification is needed. > > Remark: the same problem appears in next paragraph with > **'_diameter._tls'.realm > > **Remark: the IANA requirement section (11.5 and 11.6) also considers > TLS as a transport protocol at the same level as TCP and SCTP, whereas > TLS runs over TCP or SCTP. > = At the moment, we want to consider TLS/TCP as a separate secured = transport since we are proposing a new secured port specifically for it. > 2) This is not important, there are some typo in the new paragraph about > 7. Error Handling > = Thanks. pls send me specifics and we should fix those. -- victor > Thank you, > > Best regards, > Sebastien. > > > Victor Fajardo a =E9crit : > = >> Changes in this revision includes: >> >> - CER/CEA protection via TLS. See ML thread on "Options for securing >> CER/CEA" >> * Also updated peer discovery for peers that support TLS ports. >> >> - Additional text on processing answers with errors (from AAA-DOCTORS >> discussion) >> >> - Reverted Auth-Session-State default to STATE_MAINTAINED. (Discussion >> on draft-14 changes) >> >> Open issues: >> >> - There maybe a need to increment the version number in the diameter >> header. Any comments ? >> >> regards, >> victor >> >> = >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions >>> Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> >>> Title : Diameter Base Protocol >>> Author(s) : V. Fajardo, et al. >>> Filename : draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt >>> Pages : 160 >>> Date : 2008-12-11 >>> >>> The Diameter base protocol is intended to provide an Authentication, >>> Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as >>> network access or IP mobility. Diameter is also intended to work in >>> both local Authentication, Authorization & Accounting and roaming >>> situations. This document specifies the message format, transport, >>> error reporting, accounting and security services to be used by all >>> Diameter applications. The Diameter base application needs to be >>> supported by all Diameter implementations. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >>> Internet-Draft. >>> = >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DiME mailing list >>> DiME@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >>> = >>> = >> _______________________________________________ >> DiME mailing list >> DiME@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime >> >> = > > = _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 11 18:59:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7323A67B5; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:59:28 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8818E3A67B5 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:59:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMtMOF47QN7T for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [133.243.3.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7D53A6774 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2 [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC2tZAV022592; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC2tYiQ019332; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (mail.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.3]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id mBC2tYEC019329; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail2.nict.go.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.nict.go.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22096EBE; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:34 +0900 (JST) Received: from [133.243.146.164] (5gou2f-dhcp04.nict.go.jp [133.243.146.164]) by mail2.nict.go.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 837366E4E; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:34 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4941D2A3.3060202@nict.go.jp> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:55:31 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Victor Fajardo References: <20081211171501.821633A6C3E@core3.amsl.com> <49414FF5.3020904@tari.toshiba.com> <4941C4DB.9020607@nict.go.jp> <4941CB00.303@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: <4941CB00.303@tari.toshiba.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=33D9F61D Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Thank you for your quick answer. >> Because I believe that TLS runs over SCTP or TCP, I believe you would >> need two different records? Or do you assume that TLS is only run over >> TCP? > > Only TCP for practical reasons. We can clarify this. Thank you for the reply. I believe it is worth stating this clearly in the document, but maybe it is only me. Anyway in case a some point later TLS/SCTP is needed (or maybe S-SCTP), I still believe the references to this new port should include "TCP" in addition to "TLS". >> **Remark: the IANA requirement section (11.5 and 11.6) also considers >> TLS as a transport protocol at the same level as TCP and SCTP, whereas >> TLS runs over TCP or SCTP. >> > > At the moment, we want to consider TLS/TCP as a separate secured > transport since we are proposing a new secured port specifically for it. Right, my point was just it should say "TLS/TCP" and not just "TLS" in the document, IMHO. >> 2) This is not important, there are some typo in the new paragraph about >> 7. Error Handling >> > > Thanks. pls send me specifics and we should fix those. I am not native English so maybe I am mistaking, so please discard my comments in that case ^^. In the case where the answer message itself contain an error(s), any ^^^ contains related session SHOULD be terminated by sending an STR or ASR message. The Termination-Cause AVP in the STR MAY be filled with the appropriate value to inidcate the cause of the error. An application ^^ indicate MAY also send an application specific request instead of STR or ASR to signal the error in the case where no state is maintained or to allow for some form of error recovery with the corresponding Diameter entity. Thanks, Sebastien. -- Sebastien Decugis Research fellow Network Architecture Group NICT (nict.go.jp) _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 02:38:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752303A6A62; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:38:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417353A6A62 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:38:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMO8sSR7CmkJ for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ED1A83A6A21 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2008 10:38:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO 4FIL42860) [192.100.124.156] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 16 Dec 2008 11:38:22 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/9B3UTFU79+yxnQ79Q/ZarWTsep1NqxfKPv6bpCn ZVghr5YKmAgVaR From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:39:07 +0200 Message-ID: <008201c95f6a$8a086d70$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acle6igKodwmJqgZS5mJ/E6xI3cVXg== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.6899999999999999 Subject: [Dime] Patent Application regarding MIPv6 RADIUS and/or RFC 4285 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Folks, I was recently pointed to a patent application related to MIPv6 Authentication Protocol and/or the MIPv6 RADIUS work: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=US2005012600&DISPLAY=STATUS As a chair I need to inform the group. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 16 07:13:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BCC3A6A5E; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:13:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E033A6A6F for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0OObxOPj+pFu for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E101F3A6A5E for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1482708fga.41 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.59.18 with SMTP id h18mr4587197fga.75.1229440342398; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.100.5 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:12:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <84e7bcd30812160712o6e1fa632qd1050aa09c00da71@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:12:22 +0200 From: "Gal Mor" To: dime@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dime] RADIUS-Diameter Translation Agent: Implementation and Deployment Feedback Needed! X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1110794410==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --===============1110794410== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_8948_7109349.1229440342402" ------=_Part_8948_7109349.1229440342402 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi all, I didn't see any replies to this post ? why ? I think this is a real problem. We are involved in integration work in EMEA region, and we found this issues of Diameter to legacy interoperability/translation a big issue. in mobile, wireline, ISP's and Wimax networks There are also a number of solutions out there like Traffix Diameter Gateway (http://www.traffixsystems.com) and I think also HP (www.hp.com )and IBM ( www.ibm.com) have similar solutions. As anyone come across other solutions ? can anyone share more information on the issue Cheers, Gal From: *Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)* Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM Subject: [Dime] RADIUS-Diameter Translation Agent: Implementation and Deployment Feedback Needed! To: dime@ietf.org, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, radiusext@ops.ietf.org Hi all, we recently had a couple of discussions around the complexity of translating RADIUS to Diameter (and vice versa). It would be great to hear more about currently implemented and potentially even deployed RADIUS-Diameter translation agents. Please reply to this mail or contact me directly if you have such a device. Your input would be very valuable to understand the implementation complexity a bit better. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Hannes Tschofenig DIME WG Co-Chair _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime ------=_Part_8948_7109349.1229440342402 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hi all,
 
I didn't see any replies to this post ? why ? I think this is a real problem.
We are involved in integration work in EMEA region, and we found this issues of Diameter to legacy interoperability/translation a big issue.
in mobile, wireline, ISP's and Wimax networks
There are also a number of solutions out there like Traffix Diameter Gateway (http://www.traffixsystems.com) and I think also HP (www.hp.com )and IBM (www.ibm.com) have similar solutions.
 
As anyone come across other solutions ? can anyone share more information on the issue
 
Cheers,
Gal
 
 
From: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Subject: [Dime] RADIUS-Diameter Translation Agent: Implementation and Deployment Feedback Needed!
To: dime@ietf.org, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, radiusext@ops.ietf.org


Hi all,

we recently had a couple of discussions around the complexity of
translating RADIUS to Diameter (and vice versa).

It would be great to hear more about currently implemented and
potentially even deployed RADIUS-Diameter translation agents. Please
reply to this mail or contact me directly if you have such a device.

Your input would be very valuable to understand the implementation
complexity a bit better.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,
Hannes Tschofenig
DIME WG Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

 

------=_Part_8948_7109349.1229440342402-- --===============1110794410== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============1110794410==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 18 02:45:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38EE28C149; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 7C0DD3A689F; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081218104501.7C0DD3A689F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter Author(s) : J. Korhonen, H. Tschofenig Filename : draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2008-12-18 This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters that can be reused for conveying QoS information within Diameter. The payloads used to carry these QoS parameters are opaque for the AAA client and the AAA server itself and interpreted by the respective Resource Management Function. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-18023731.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 18 02:45:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E476F28C203; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 889213A69F3; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081218104501.889213A69F3@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2008-12-18 This document extends the IPFilterRule AVP functionality of the Diameter Base protocol and the functionality of the QoS-Filter-Rule AVP defined in RFC 4005. The ability to convey Quality of Service information using the AVPs defined in this document is available to existing and future Diameter applications where permitted by the command ABNF. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-18023740.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 18 02:45:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1842428C208; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:05 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 913AB3A6AB7; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081218104501.913AB3A6AB7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-07.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Quality of Service Application Author(s) : D. Sun, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-07.txt Pages : 57 Date : 2008-12-18 This document describes the framework, messages and procedures for the Diameter Quality of Service (QoS) application. The Diameter QoS application allows network elements to interact with Diameter servers when allocating QoS resources in the network. In particular, two modes of operation -- Pull and Push -- are defined. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-18023747.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 18 04:42:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D85728C217; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:42:53 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C51128C217 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:42:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.910, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nazlfxkeYosQ for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B813A6960 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBICggRm027669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:42:42 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBICgakt030667 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:42:42 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:42:40 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:42:56 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: QoS Draft Updates Thread-Index: AclhDibklmD/xl4mTe2pw0Ow+0oRng== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2008 12:42:40.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D758FD0:01C9610E] Subject: [Dime] QoS Draft Updates X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, Right before the holidays we wanted to share another draft snapshot with you. Three documents got updated. Here is a short summary: * Diameter QoS parameters http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.tx t This document experienced a number of changes due to the feedback we received during IETF Last Call and with the discussions aftwards on the list. Here are the changes: - Changed the encoding of the parameters (to a Diameter AVP encoding) - Enhanced the description for the QoS parameters. - Simplified QoS parameters as there were some concerns regarding the ability to implement them. - Addressed comments raised during Dan's AD review (such as IANA registry). The diff can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-d ime-qos-parameters-06.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft -ietf-dime-qos-parameters-08.txt (Version 6 was the draft that was sent around during IETF Last Call.) What are the open issues? We need to figure out what todo about the RADIUS definition. * Diameter QoS attributes http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.tx t There are essentially three types of changes: - Alignment with the changes made in the QoS parameter draft - Including of Excess-Treatment & Excess-Treatment-Action AVPs - Editorial changes to improve the readability (re-arranged sections) - Renamed a few AVPs - Added an "Action" AVP since we lost it in some version (we noticed it when we added the Excess-Treatment-Action AVP). Open Issues? - IPv6 aspects presented during the meeting - Review feedback regarding the Ethernet stuff (AI to Dan) * Diameter QoS application http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-qos-07.txt - Updated the document to align it with the draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09.txt. The functionality is not impacted by the update. Open Issues? None known. It would be good to get review comments in case that there is something missing or wrong. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 19 00:16:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA653A685C; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:16:02 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F9A3A685C for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:16:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eDXbePwlMBvA for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003143A67EE for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by QMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sw771a00616AWCUA5wFsTT; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:15:52 +0000 Received: from gwzPC ([124.120.229.120]) by OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id swFc1a00A2cWHv88SwFhtT; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:15:50 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:15:31 +0700 Message-ID: <003501c961b1$fe1feaa0$fa5fbfe0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclhsfV5r41qKxkERomGmHpJlCxFCQ== Content-Language: en-us Subject: [Dime] capabilities update plan? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I've recently been reminded that a long time ago Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] wrote: >> Hi Glen, >> >> What do you think about the current proposal for capabilities update ? >> Basically, we would: >> >> a) Remove capabilities update completely from bis >> b) write a new extension application for capabilities update >> c) use new command code for (b) to negotiate the updates >> >> Is it along the same lines you where commenting on ? > > Actually, I was just thinking about (c) + changing the base version number so that peers could actually know that capabilities update was supported. > I'm fine w/ the A0 b) c) approach, though; I'd even volunteer to work on the draft ;-). --------------------------------------- If I'm going to do something I guess that I'd better get started ;-). My question is, though, if this is actually the plan? I notice that #1 has taken place ;-) but are numbers 2 & 3 actually supposed to happen? _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 19 05:28:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14F33A6883; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:28:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78BFE3A6883 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:28:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2L2dcMfn6WiN for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9503A6808 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (home.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBJDRM8a038414; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:27:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <494BA188.5090204@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:28:40 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glen Zorn References: <003501c961b1$fe1feaa0$fa5fbfe0$@net> In-Reply-To: <003501c961b1$fe1feaa0$fa5fbfe0$@net> Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] capabilities update plan? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi Glen, > I've recently been reminded that a long time ago Victor Fajardo > [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] wrote: > > >>> Hi Glen, >>> >>> What do you think about the current proposal for capabilities update ? >>> Basically, we would: >>> >>> a) Remove capabilities update completely from bis >>> b) write a new extension application for capabilities update >>> c) use new command code for (b) to negotiate the updates >>> >>> Is it along the same lines you where commenting on ? >>> >> Actually, I was just thinking about (c) + changing the base version number >> > so that peers could actually know that capabilities update was supported. > >> I'm fine w/ the A0 b) c) approach, though; I'd even volunteer to work on >> > the draft ;-). > > --------------------------------------- > > If I'm going to do something I guess that I'd better get started ;-). My > question is, though, if this is actually the plan? I notice that #1 has > taken place ;-) but are numbers 2 & 3 actually supposed to happen? > So far, yes I think this is the current plan :) .. otherwise we would loose a functionality thats really useful -- victor _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Fri Dec 19 23:29:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E75C3A69D8; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:29:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EACF3A69D8 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:29:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3SZIDWn8Ax0m for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1523A6972 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.19]) by QMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tKV41a0030QuhwU52KVGd5; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:29:16 +0000 Received: from gwzPC ([124.121.210.180]) by OMTA02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id tKUX1a0023u4sNL3NKUizH; Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:29:11 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Victor Fajardo'" , "'Hannes Tschofenig'" , "David Frascone" References: <003501c961b1$fe1feaa0$fa5fbfe0$@net> <494BA188.5090204@tari.toshiba.com> In-Reply-To: <494BA188.5090204@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:28:27 +0700 Message-ID: <002a01c96274$a4e24370$eea6ca50$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Aclh3bWmeptD43OESeCZ3LdM0WrE/gAlV3Ng Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] capabilities update plan? X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Victor Fajardo [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] writes: > Hi Glen, > > > I've recently been reminded that a long time ago Victor Fajardo > > [mailto:vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com] wrote: > > > > > >>> Hi Glen, > >>> > >>> What do you think about the current proposal for capabilities > update ? > >>> Basically, we would: > >>> > >>> a) Remove capabilities update completely from bis > >>> b) write a new extension application for capabilities update > >>> c) use new command code for (b) to negotiate the updates > >>> > >>> Is it along the same lines you where commenting on ? > >>> > >> Actually, I was just thinking about (c) + changing the base version > number > >> > > so that peers could actually know that capabilities update was > supported. > > > >> I'm fine w/ the A0 b) c) approach, though; I'd even volunteer to > work on > >> > > the draft ;-). > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > If I'm going to do something I guess that I'd better get started ;-). > My > > question is, though, if this is actually the plan? I notice that #1 > has > > taken place ;-) but are numbers 2 & 3 actually supposed to happen? > > > > So far, yes I think this is the current plan :) .. otherwise we would > loose a functionality thats really useful OK, I guess that I can edit the initial draft (contributions of text are solicited :-). Hannes, Dave: given the circumstances can we just cut to the chase & just start w/draft-ietf-dime-whatever? > > -- victor _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 21 14:15:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D52E28C127; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id E94B428C126; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:15:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081221221501.E94B428C126@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2008-12-21 Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and the Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider. This document specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP Home Agent and that Diameter server. Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node are supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 protocol allows different mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol, certificates and pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another method makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In addition to authentication and authorization, the configuration of Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and accounting is specified in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-21140414.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 21 15:04:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF59A3A6982; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:04:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD6F3A6982 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:04:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V4LMxdUneDC3 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FDC3A679C for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-112-142-12.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-142-12.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.142.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7AD21653A for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:04:32 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: From: Jouni Korhonen To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:04:31 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Subject: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Just a brief summary what has been tweaked. Just to remind that there was no WG last call comment on this I-D: o Mostly NITs and typos (thx Victor & Hannes) o added some text what/when service-selection is in reply message o clarified the scope of session id Cheers, Jouni Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool > Date: December 22, 2008 12:04:14 AM GMT+02:00 > To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com > Cc: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net,julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com,gerardo.giaretta@gmail.com > ,madjid.nakhjiri@motorola.com > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14 > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt has been > successfuly submitted by Jouni Korhonen and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split > Revision: 14 > Title: Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter > Server Interaction > Creation_date: 2008-12-22 > WG ID: dime > Number_of_pages: 43 > > Abstract: > Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations > dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and the > Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider. This document > specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP Home Agent and that > Diameter server. > > Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node are > supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 protocol allows > different mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol, > certificates and pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another > method makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In > addition to authentication and authorization, the configuration of > Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and accounting is specified in this > document. > > > > The IETF Secretariat. > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 22 02:06:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2F63A6A22; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:06:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3D328C136 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:16:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRtuLfmx-OpD for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:16:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367C628C139 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from a88-112-142-12.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-142-12.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.112.142.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw03.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD002166CA for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:15:47 +0200 (EET) Message-Id: <83AFBCDA-8C17-415F-905C-9A219815BA54@gmail.com> From: jouni To: dime@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:15:47 +0200 References: <20081221220414.836C628C122@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:06:07 -0800 Subject: [Dime] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Just a brief summary what has been tweaked. Just to remind that there was no WG last call comment on this I-D: o Mostly NITs and typos (thx Victor & Hannes) o added some text what/when service-selection is in reply message o clarified the scope of session id Cheers, Jouni Begin forwarded message: > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool > Date: December 22, 2008 12:04:14 AM GMT+02:00 > To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com > Cc: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net,julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com,gerardo.giaretta@gmail.com > ,madjid.nakhjiri@motorola.com > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14 > > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-14.txt has been > successfuly submitted by Jouni Korhonen and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split > Revision: 14 > Title: Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter > Server Interaction > Creation_date: 2008-12-22 > WG ID: dime > Number_of_pages: 43 > > Abstract: > Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations > dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and the > Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider. This document > specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP Home Agent and that > Diameter server. > > Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node are > supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 protocol allows > different mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol, > certificates and pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another > method makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In > addition to authentication and authorization, the configuration of > Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and accounting is specified in this > document. > > > > The IETF Secretariat. > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 22 06:24:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF393A6883; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:24:09 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1903A6883 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:24:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r2x6TqIkld7B for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CEA3A6882 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:24:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:23:58 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: "dime@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:23:56 -0500 Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclkPl8T/LuMDrWXS36NfIyUbJ5VWQAASLzw Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Changes in this version include: o Incorporate review comments from Victor, Glen and Lionel. o Add 'dime' to filename as requested by Doc Shepherd. o Other minor changes to keep the idnits tool happy. Regards Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] > Sent: December 22, 2008 09:05 > To: Mark Jones > Cc: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > > A new version of I-D, > draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00.txt has been > successfuly submitted by Mark Jones and posted to the IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes > Revision: 00 > Title: Diameter Command Codes for 3GPP EPS Diameter > Applications > Creation_date: 2008-12-22 > WG ID: Independent Submission > Number_of_pages: 5 > > Abstract: > This document describes a set of new IANA Diameter Command Codes to > be used in new vendor-specific Diameter applications defined for the > Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System > (EPS). > > > > The IETF Secretariat. > > > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 22 22:07:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DA43A6897; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:07:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C4F3A6897 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:07:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7o9uh1VOXAOP for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556F13A6891 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:07:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.12]) by QMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id uJ8G1a0030FhH24A9W6vd8; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:06:55 +0000 Received: from gwzPC ([124.120.217.209]) by OMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id uW6e1a0024XfVXg8UW6iEl; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:06:53 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Mark Jones'" , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0700 Message-ID: <00e101c964c4$a1862320$e4926960$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclkPl8T/LuMDrWXS36NfIyUbJ5VWQAASLzwACEWqRA= Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Mark Jones [mailto:mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com] writes: > Changes in this version include: > o Incorporate review comments from Victor, Glen and Lionel. > o Add 'dime' to filename as requested by Doc Shepherd. > o Other minor changes to keep the idnits tool happy. Aside from an extraneous newline in the references, looks fine to me. ... _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 02:23:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6713928C146; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:23:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FC928C141 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:23:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w8dNxjgvUvrX for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 376A128C146 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 02:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2008 10:23:39 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 23 Dec 2008 11:23:39 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19HhHFPRsZHKLZyvDQDUZhnz/5F3JA9GyNfM1Abdp v9HqHkDG194ON8 From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:23:59 +0200 Message-ID: <011c01c964e8$922f3f50$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcljujjUzNN+jp8iRpKafuoZlCgz2wBLPd+A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.53 Subject: [Dime] FW: DIME Milestones Update X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I had a chat with Dan about the adjustments of the milestones and I crafted the following list: -------------------------------- DONE.......Submit "Diameter API" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC DONE.......Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. DONE.......Submit "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Dec 2008...Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Jan 2009...Submit Revision of "Diameter Base Protocol" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter QoS Application" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" as DIME working group item Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" as DIME working group item Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" as DIME working group item Mar 2009...Submit "Diameter Application Design Guidelines" to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard May 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard -------------------------------- A few notes regarding the items: * in the current milestones list at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dime-charter.html we do not have 'QoS Attributes for Diameter' and 'QoS parameters for Usage w/ Diameter'. Some time back we decided to split the Diameter QoS work into three documents and I believe we should capture this aspect in the updated milestone list. * There are 3 new items in the list, namely - "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dondeti-dime-erp-diameter-02.txt) - "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt) - "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-04.txt) * When writing the above list I was wondering whether we actually need to go for Proposed Standard for these three documents. With RFC3588bis we could also use Informational RFCs and then upgrade them once we got implementation and deployment experience. I believe that this would allow us to publish documents faster. I wonder what the group thinks about that idea? * I made a proposal regarding the milestones and I was wondering whether the group considers my suggestion as realistic. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 06:25:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EA83A691F; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:25:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B5F3A68B7 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:25:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7l+WT0DyfbOP for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from webmail.bridgewatersystems.com (webmail.bridgewatersystems.com [66.46.199.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A621F3A682B for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) by exchange02.bridgewatersys.com ([192.168.150.32]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:24:57 -0500 From: Mark Jones To: Glen Zorn Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:24:55 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 Thread-Index: AclkPl8T/LuMDrWXS36NfIyUbJ5VWQAASLzwACEWqRAAEUz5QA== Message-ID: References: <00e101c964c4$a1862320$e4926960$@net> In-Reply-To: <00e101c964c4$a1862320$e4926960$@net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dime@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Thanks for the review, Glen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net] > Sent: December 23, 2008 01:06 > To: Mark Jones; lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com > Cc: dime@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for > draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 > > Mark Jones [mailto:mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com] writes: > > > > Changes in this version include: > > o Incorporate review comments from Victor, Glen and Lionel. > > o Add 'dime' to filename as requested by Doc Shepherd. > > o Other minor changes to keep the idnits tool happy. > > Aside from an extraneous newline in the references, looks fine to me. > The XML looks fine though right? :) xml2rfc adds that newline when the reference anchor is longer than 7 characters. I'm sure the authors of that tool had an excellent reason (RFCnnnn) for that design decision but I'll cut a new version if that newline offends. Regards Mark _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 06:42:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288203A691F; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:42:01 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B177A3A6813 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:42:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.216, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0y3dV6GeHEiZ for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA953A691F for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:42:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.19]) by QMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id udyX1a00G0QkzPwA8ehrBo; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:41:51 +0000 Received: from gwzPC ([124.122.161.51]) by OMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id uehH1a00516qGr88NehRys; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:41:46 +0000 From: "Glen Zorn" To: "'Mark Jones'" References: <00e101c964c4$a1862320$e4926960$@net> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:41:13 +0700 Message-ID: <011601c9650c$93004090$b900c1b0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AclkPl8T/LuMDrWXS36NfIyUbJ5VWQAASLzwACEWqRAAEUz5QAAAg2Yw Content-Language: en-us Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: New Version Notification for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-00 X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org Mark Jones [mailto:Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com] writes: ... > > Aside from an extraneous newline in the references, looks fine to me. > > > > The XML looks fine though right? :) > xml2rfc adds that newline when the reference anchor is longer than 7 > characters. I'm sure the authors of that tool had an excellent reason > (RFCnnnn) for that design decision but I'll cut a new version if that > newline offends. It's not a big deal to me. ... _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 13:45:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7D028C180; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id ECB9428C174; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:45:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081223214501.ECB9428C174@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:45:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2008-12-23 Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and the Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider (MSP). This document specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP Home Agent and that Diameter server. Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node are supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 (IKEv2) protocol allows different mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates and pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another method makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In addition to authentication and authorization, the configuration of Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and accounting is specified in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-23134300.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 13:48:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BF628C180; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:48:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ED328C180 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:48:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VM95SVj-WJ-7 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:48:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 80F9F28C17F for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:48:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Dec 2008 21:48:37 -0000 Received: from a91-154-105-43.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO 4FIL42860) [91.154.105.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp005) with SMTP; 23 Dec 2008 22:48:37 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18AJhIu2J8AAs3Bix6LTB0uhDebztDfwexDr/XLVF ZaSCgT90XhDrPw From: "Hannes Tschofenig" To: Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:48:57 +0200 Message-ID: <011501c96548$425ef5a0$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcllR7PGpiI9ROLuSraOydQqOHCX5gAADskg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.52 Subject: [Dime] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org I resubmitted the document after a chat with Victor, the PROTO shepherd for this document, about the reference section. I believe that these two references are normative but I am not 100% sure. Two references got moved to the normative section: [RFC4283] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Mobile Node Identifier Option for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)", RFC 4283, November 2005. [RFC4285] Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K. Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4285, January 2006. Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On >Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Sent: 23 December, 2008 23:45 >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc: dime@ietf.org >Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line >Internet-Drafts directories. >This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and >Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for >Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction > Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt > Pages : 43 > Date : 2008-12-23 > >Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations >dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and >the Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider (MSP). >This document specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP >Home Agent and that Diameter server. > >Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node >are supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 >(IKEv2) protocol allows different mechanisms, such as the >Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), certificates and >pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another method >makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In >addition to authentication and authorization, the >configuration of Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and >accounting is specified in this document. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail >reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII >version of the Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 23 14:07:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ACB128C18A; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCA428C18A; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYu5QkdZXvZG; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:418:1403:0:212:17ff:fe52:7811]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCE428C180; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ns.tari.toshiba.com [172.30.24.10]) by toshi17.tari.toshiba.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBNM5kEq089628; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:05:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from vfajardo@tari.toshiba.com) Message-ID: <49516116.7080107@tari.toshiba.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:07:18 -0500 From: Victor Fajardo User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dromasca@avaya.com Cc: "dime@ietf.org" , IETF-IESG-Support via RT Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org PROTO WRITEUP for draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt =================================================== (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Victor Fajardo. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document is a solutions document for the MIPv6 bootstrapping problem for the split scenario. It has direct implications for authentication/authorization, provisioning and accounting of mobility resources to users. Therefore, the document has received extensive reviews by relevant WG members - under the employ of operators and parties that have associations with interested SDOs. Discrepancies found during the lifetime of this doc have received a fair amount of reviews both within and outside of the WG. All discussions have been publicly posted in the dime mailing list. So, I do not have any concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? There are no concerns with this document. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. An IPR disclosure has been filed, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/964/, and the group has been informed about it. Content that may be subject of the IPR claim was moved into a separate document, see http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-mip6-feature-bits-00.txt (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is consensus in the WG behind the document. The problem is well understood and the solution is acceptable to the WG, as well as other interested SDOs. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has been split into normative and informative references. There normative references that are work in progress. They are as follows: [I-D.ietf-dime-mip6-integrated] Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins, C., and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction", draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-11 (work in progress), November 2008. [I-D.ietf-dime-qos-attributes] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., Arumaithurai, M., Jones, M., and A. Lior, "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter", draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-09 (work in progress), December 2008. It is expected that these referenced documents will be published ahead of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-15.txt. This document requires a DOWNREF for RFC 4285. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document has an IANA considerations section that is consistent with the body. The document creates a new registry for the MIP6-Auth-Mode AVP (also defined in the document). The document provides an initial value for this AVP and follows BCP 26 with "Specification Required" as an allocation requirement. Following RFC 3588, IETF consensus is required for allocation application ids, command codes, AVP codes and values is done as part of the review and consensus process given by the work on it through the DIME working group. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document contains ABNF rules specified in RFC 3588. The ABNF content has been validated. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document specifies the interactions between the Mobile IP Home Agent and the Diameter server (AAA) in the case where the network access service and the mobility service is not in the same administrative domain. The purpose of the interactions is to bootstrap the mobile node from the MSP as part of the authentication and/or authorization process. The document defines new diameter applications to support IKEv2 and MIPv6 authentication protocol. It defines diameter messages, AVPs and command codes to carry the authentication, authorization and bootstrapping attributes. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG to publish the document. Document Quality The document has been sent for review to MEXT. This document is part of the solution for Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping problem defined in RFC 4640. It has received extensive reviews from DIME WG members. Personnel Victor Fajardo is the document shepherd for this document. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 24 01:30:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C173A6B60; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:30:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817EC3A6B60 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.761 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.837, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLZgSiloSNKb for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39673A67B1 for ; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KCD00J01JJPE2@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:26:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.33]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KCD001CQJJPAL@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:26:13 +0800 (CST) Received: from z24109b ([10.70.39.116]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KCD0053GJJPI5@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for dime@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:26:13 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:26:12 +0800 From: Tina TSOU To: dime@ietf.org, Hannes Tschofenig Message-id: <00d201c965a9$a9fd2db0$7427460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <011c01c964e8$922f3f50$0201a8c0@nsnintra.net> Subject: Re: [Dime] FW: DIME Milestones Update X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1258159858==" Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1258159858== Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_nmD+eIJZ91zO9JLP1WGxvQ)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_nmD+eIJZ91zO9JLP1WGxvQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi all, Should the work in http://groups.google.com/group/diameter-routing be considered at the same level as the following? - "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt) Wish you a joyful and peaceful holiday season and a prosperous and healthy New Year:D B. R. Tina ----- Original Message ----- From: Hannes Tschofenig To: dime@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:23 PM Subject: [Dime] FW: DIME Milestones Update Hi all, I had a chat with Dan about the adjustments of the milestones and I crafted the following list: -------------------------------- DONE.......Submit "Diameter API" to the IESG for consideration as an Informational RFC DONE.......Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. DONE.......Submit "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Dec 2008...Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard. Jan 2009...Submit Revision of "Diameter Base Protocol" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter QoS Application" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" as DIME working group item Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" as DIME working group item Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" as DIME working group item Mar 2009...Submit "Diameter Application Design Guidelines" to the IESG for consideration as a BCP document Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard May 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard -------------------------------- A few notes regarding the items: * in the current milestones list at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dime-charter.html we do not have 'QoS Attributes for Diameter' and 'QoS parameters for Usage w/ Diameter'. Some time back we decided to split the Diameter QoS work into three documents and I believe we should capture this aspect in the updated milestone list. * There are 3 new items in the list, namely - "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dondeti-dime-erp-diameter-02.txt) - "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt) - "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-04.txt) * When writing the above list I was wondering whether we actually need to go for Proposed Standard for these three documents. With RFC3588bis we could also use Informational RFCs and then upgrade them once we got implementation and deployment experience. I believe that this would allow us to publish documents faster. I wonder what the group thinks about that idea? * I made a proposal regarding the milestones and I was wondering whether the group considers my suggestion as realistic. Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --Boundary_(ID_nmD+eIJZ91zO9JLP1WGxvQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi all,
Should the work in
be considered at the same level as the following?
 
- "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications"
    (based on
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt)
 
Wish you a joyful and peaceful holiday season and a prosperous and healthy New Year:D
 
B. R.
Tina
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:23 PM
Subject: [Dime] FW: DIME Milestones Update

Hi all,

I had a chat with Dan about the adjustments of the milestones and I crafted
the following list:

--------------------------------

DONE.......Submit "Diameter API" to the IESG for consideration as an
Informational RFC

DONE.......Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server
to Diameter Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard.

DONE.......Submit "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter" to
the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

Dec 2008...Submit "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter
Server Interaction" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

Jan 2009...Submit Revision of "Diameter Base Protocol" to the IESG for
consideration as a Proposed Standard

Jan 2009...Submit "Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter" to the IESG
for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter QoS Application" to the IESG for consideration
as a Proposed Standard

Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" as
DIME working group item

Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing
Clarifications" as DIME working group item

Jan 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" as DIME working group item

Mar 2009...Submit "Diameter Application Design Guidelines" to the IESG for
consideration as a BCP document

Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing
Clarifications" to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

Apr 2009...Submit "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6" to the IESG for consideration
as a Proposed Standard

May 2009...Submit "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol" to
the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard

--------------------------------

A few notes regarding the items:

* in the current milestones list at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dime-charter.html we do not have 'QoS
Attributes for Diameter' and 'QoS parameters for Usage w/ Diameter'. Some
time back we decided to split the Diameter QoS work into three documents and
I believe we should capture this aspect in the updated milestone list.

* There are 3 new items in the list, namely
  - "Diameter Support for EAP Re-authentication Protocol"
    (based on
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dondeti-dime-erp-diameter-02.txt)
  - "Diameter User-Name and Realm Based Request Routing Clarifications"
    (based on
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-nai-routing-02.txt)
  - "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6"
    (based on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-korhonen-dime-pmip6-04.txt)

* When writing the above list I was wondering whether we actually need to go
for Proposed Standard for these three documents. With RFC3588bis we could
also use Informational RFCs and then upgrade them once we got implementation
and deployment experience. I believe that this would allow us to publish
documents faster. I wonder what the group thinks about that idea?

* I made a proposal regarding the milestones and I was wondering whether the
group considers my suggestion as realistic.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
--Boundary_(ID_nmD+eIJZ91zO9JLP1WGxvQ)-- --===============1258159858== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --===============1258159858==-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 29 12:00:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AA628C27C; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:00:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@ietf.org Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 49D933A6B85; Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:00:00 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081229200001.49D933A6B85@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:00:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-16.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Diameter Maintenance and Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Home Agent to Diameter Server Interaction Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-16.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2008-12-29 Mobile IPv6 deployments may want to bootstrap their operations dynamically based on an interaction between the Home Agent and the Diameter server of the Mobile Service Provider. This document specifies the interaction between a Mobile IP Home Agent and that Diameter server. Several different mechanisms for authenticating a Mobile Node are supported. The usage of the Internet Key Exchange v2 protocol allows different mechanisms, such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol, certificates and pre-shared secrets to be used. Furthermore, another method makes use of the Mobile IPv6 Authentication Protocol. In addition to authentication and authorization, the configuration of Mobile IPv6 specific parameters and accounting is specified in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-16.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-dime-mip6-split-16.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-12-29114845.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime --NextPart-- From dime-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 31 01:15:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dime-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-dime-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2F03A695B; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD083A694E; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1XdMWz02Mdp8; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BCD3A6768; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 01:15:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBV9FKgL015857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:20 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBV9FJSe007620; Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:19 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC007.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.15]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:15:19 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:15:35 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt thread-index: AclqizluIHHOdx2rTiG6Q/X4SeeNdw== From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2008 09:15:19.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D371850:01C96B28] Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: [Dime] PROTO Writeup for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dime-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: dime-bounces@ietf.org PROTO WRITEUP for draft-jones-dime-3gpp-eps-command-codes-01.txt ================================================================ (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? The document shepherd is Hannes Tschofenig. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document is an AD sponsored document. It has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig (DIME WG co-chair) and Victor Fajardo (DIME WG secretary). Additionally, Glen Zorn has provided a review. Since the work this document is based on has been done in the 3GPP the referenced specification, namely TS 29.272, has received a fair amount of review. This document falls within a category of Diameter documents that have recently been submitted to the IESG for allocation of Command Codes, such as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-dime-itu-t-rw-02 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5224. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? There are no concerns with this document. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns with this document. No IPR disclosures are known. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This document is not a working group item of the DIME working group. However, the group discussed the desire by other SDOs to develop Diameter extensions without the need todo their work within the IETF, if necessary. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There is no opposition to this document. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The document does not contain nits. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has references split into normative and informative subsections. There normative reference section points to a 3GPP specification: [TS29.272] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, "3GPP TS 29.272 V8.0.0; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; Evolved Packet System; MME and SGSN Related Interfaces Based on Diameter Protocol (Release 8)", http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29272.htm, 09 2008. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? The document has an IANA considerations section and is the most important part of the document as it asks IANA to register new Diameter Command Codes. The values are added to an existing registry established by the Diameter Base specification. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document does not contain text written in a formal language. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document registers a set of IANA Diameter Command Codes to be used in new vendor-specific Diameter applications defined for the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS). These new Diameter applications are defined for MME and SGSN related interfaces in the Release 8 architecture. Working Group Summary This document is not a DIME working group document but has received review from DIME WG members. Document Quality The document has been reviewed by Hannes Tschofenig, Victor Fajardo and Glen Zorn from the DIME working group. The main work this document is based on has been developed in the 3GPP and has received a fair amount of review. Personnel Hannes Tschofenig is the document shepherd for this document. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime