RE: : Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 4005 <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17.txt>

Hi all,

Just one more comment.  Assuming that everyone is OK about this, I think that
this is just a clarification of the existing text.  I think it is OK to address
in AUTH48.  If it is not, then I suggest we finish NASREQ, publish it as an
RFC and submit David's text as errata.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> ext David Mitton
> Sent: 18 April, 2005 07:35
> To: Bernard Aboba; [email protected]; Pat Calhoun; Loughney John
> (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); [email protected]
> Cc: Bert Wijnen; Kessens David (Nokia-NET/MtView)
> Subject: [AAA-WG]: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 4005
> <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17.txt> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here is my contribution.
> Can we work on some concensus around this text or something like it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> ------
> Text changes for RFC 4005 <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17.txt>
> 
> Section 9.6.  RADIUS Vendor Specific Attributes
> 
> para 1:  s/recommended/example/
> 
> after para 1: <add >
>     A system communicating between Diameter and RADIUS MAY 
> have specific
>     knowledge of vendor formats, and MAY be able translate between the
>     two formats. However, given the deployment of many RADIUS vendor
>     formats that do not follow the example format in RFC 2865 
> [RADIUS],
>     (e.g. those that use a longer vendor type code) the 
> translations in
>     the next two sections, will not work in general for those 
> VSAs.  RFC
>     2865 states that a robust implementation SHOULD support 
> the field as
>     undistinguished octets.
> 
>     Systems that don't have vendor format knowledge, MAY discard such
>     messages not knowing a suitable translation. An 
> alternative format is
>     under consideration [VSAdraft] that proposes encodings that would
>     preserve the native information and not require vendor 
> knowledge in
>     the gateway system.
> 
>     The following sections are an example for translating RADIUS VSAs
>     that use the example RADIUS format, and Diameter VSAs 
> that have type
>     codes less than 255, and value field lengths less than 252.
> <endadd>
> 
> Section: 9.6.2.  Forwarding a RADIUS VSA as a Diameter Vendor 
> Specific AVP
> 
> Change from:
>        Diameter AVP length = length of AVP (heade
> To:
>        Diameter AVP length = length of AVP (header + data)
> 
> 
> 
> Informative References (section 13.2, page 79)
> <Add after [DiamMIP]>
> 
> [VSAdraft] D. Mitton "Diameter/RADIUS Vendor Specific AVP 
> Translation",
> draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-00.txt, "Work in Progress", 
> April 2005
> 
> <endadd>
> 
> ==============================================================
> ============
> On 4/5/2005 07:04 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >Can you run the proposed text by the WG (as well as the 
> NASREQ authors)
> >before sending it to the RFC Editor?
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:58:52 -0500
> >From: David Mitton <[email protected]>
> >To: RFC Editor <[email protected]>
> >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], 
> [email protected],
> >      [email protected], Bert Wijnen <[email protected]>,
> >      "Kessens, David" <[email protected]>, 
> [email protected],
> >      [email protected], RFC Editor <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 4005 
> <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17
> >       .txt> NOW AVAILABLE
> >
> >I'm almost ready.
> >
> >Dave.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "RFC Editor" <[email protected]>
> >To: "David Mitton" <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 4005 
> <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17 
> >.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
> >Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:22:09 -0700
> >
> > >
> > > Glen, David Spence, and David Mitton,
> > >
> > > We have not heard any further from you regarding this document.
> > > Could you please let us know the status of this document?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > >
> >.......
> 
>