RE: : digest issue 11 closure (fwd)

Jari,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:34 PM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: 'Nelson, David'; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [AAA-WG]: digest issue 11 closure (fwd)
> 
> 
> Avi Lior wrote:
> 
> >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.
> >  
> >
> Ok. Either you are right or you get beer. Sounds good, no?

Hmmmmm, Yes!!!! You don't get many of those...

> >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.
> >  
> >
> It looks like the issues that we are discussing right now are 
> in the Diameter SIP part, like adding the nonce thing or 
> keeping/removing the grouped AVP. In that sense its not 
> delaying RADIUS SIP, although obviously it would be good to 
> ensure that the two can be in sync before we commit one of 
> them to an RFC...

Great...as long as we can wrapup RADIUS Digest.

> --Jari
> 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----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.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
>