RE: : RFC 4005 AUTH48 Review

> I agree on this; this is what I understood was the game plan for a longtime;
> that NASREQ could handle very general gatewaying issues, but not solve
> everything.
>
> I also think that we should go forward with point c. The implications for
> this are that a simple "Use NASREQ to interwork with Diameter" will be
> insufficient for on-going work in RADext; so that specific new RADIUS extensions
> should have a short dicussion on how to interwork with Diameter.

Any other comments from the WG?

In terms of publication of RFC 4005, I'd suggest that we need to decide
whether Dave's new proposed draft is an Informative or Normative reference
(I suggest Informative).  Also, we need to resolve the issue of length
restriction vs. a new flag.

Separately, we need another document on the general RADIUS/Diameter
gateway problem.  I'd suggest that RFC 4005 doesn't need to depend on this
document (either normatively or informatively).