Subject: [Dime] [ERP] Summary of current issues based on lionel's comments

From: "Julien Bournelle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:11:58 +0100

Hi all,

 I tried to catch remaining issues of the Diameter ERP document to be solved
(not taking into account jouni's comments):

 1/ Do we refer to RFC3588 or RFC3588 Bis ?

 2/ In case of EAP peer in visited domain, does we mandate the AAA proxy to
be on the path ?

 3/ In the above paragraph:

		<t> The ER server processes the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message in
		    accordance with <xref target="RFC5296"/> and responds with
		    an EAP-Finish/Re-auth message. The Diameter server MUST
		    encapsulate the EAP-Finish/Re-auth message within an
		    EAP-Payload AVP of a Diameter EAP Answer message.  In an
		    EAP re-authentication successful case, an
		    EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP is included in the Diameter EAP
		    Answer (DEA) message that contains the Re-authentication
		    Master Session Key (rMSK).  The Diameter Result-Code SHOULD
		    be a success Result-Code. In an EAP re-authentication
		    failure case, the Diameter Result-Code AVP of the a
		    Diameter EAP Answer (DEA) message SHOULD be a failure
		    Result-Code and no EAP-Master-Session-Key AVP is present.</t>

 It is not clear if SHOULD must be replaced with MUST.

 4/ Current diameter Type of EAP-DSRK-Request is DiameterIdentity whereas
it contains a domain name (which is not a FQDN). The proposal is to replace
 DiameterIdentity by UTF8String

 5/ Concerning EAP-DSRK-Lifetime, do we authorize zero as a value ? do
we need a value for infinite ?

 If you have any opinion on one of this issue, do not hesitate to
start a new thread
with a specific subject.

 Regards,

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