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

David Mitton <> supposedly scribbled:

> 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.

One question: given that the method specified will admittedly not
work in the general case and appears to violate the "SHOULD"
referenced in RFC 2865, why are we prepared to enshrine it as a
Proposed Standard?

> 
>     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.

Just to be clear, since it is not possible for the Diameter server
to know whether the originating client was a RADIUS client or not,
this document limits the actual (but not theoretical) maximum size
of all Diameter AVPs with type codes < 255 to 252 octets, is that
correct?

> <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  

I'm not sure how moving this to an external draft helps anything --
it's my understanding that an RFC cannot reference an I-D, even
informatively.  Is that incorrect?

> 
> <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
>>> 
>>> 
>> .......

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel