RE: : digest issue 11 closure (fwd)

Jari,

It's a pretty safe bet that you will *not* have to buy me a beer.  That is
why I said we need RADIUS SIP document.  Lets get the harmonizing there.  

And I agree since we came this far lets harmonize the authentication part.
But we need 3GPP2  Digest Auth quickly now.  We are delaying publication.
And by Digest Auth I mean just Digest Auth nothing to do with SIP.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:16 PM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: 'Nelson, David'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: digest issue 11 closure (fwd)
> 
> 
> Avi Lior wrote:
> 
> >So the answer to your last question: "...are these disjoint 
> solutions 
> >sets that need not interoperate?" They answer is yes.
> >
> Yes... but its not really a yes/no question. It is true that 
> the function set in Diameter SIP is significantly bigger. But 
> both can do Digest (and exactly at the same manner, if we can 
> harmonize the nonce handling in Diameter SIP). You could hope 
> for interoperability in this part*.
> 
> And the translation gateway issue isn't black and white
> issue either. We are debating whether it should take
> X amount of effort to do the gateway, or X - epsilon.
> 
> And to answer John's question on whether there's a current 
> requirement for interoperability... probably not in terms of 
> a specific customer case. But as Dave noted there's an IETF 
> requirement on making these techniques compatible. And 
> experience has shown that where people think their systems 
> are entirely self sufficient, in the next customer 
> case/specification release/business reorg they find out that 
> they do, in fact, need to interoperate with something else.
> 
> --Jari
> 
> *) I'll buy you a beer if within a year, we are not 
> discussing the RADIUS version of what exists in Diameter SIP 
> beyond RADIUS Digest.
>