Re: : RFC 4005 AUTH48 Review

I would say that we go ahead with Dave's separate document,
ensure that NASREQ limits translation AVP lengths to 1-253,
and, as already agreed elsewhere, RADEXT extensions have
Diameter compatibility specifications (good ones!).

Whether we need to investigate alternative Diameter/RADIUS
interoperability mechanisms... I don't know. For now I believe
the most urgent issue is making sure the designs don't diverge
and that new specs have a specification that shows how one
maps to another.

--Jari

Bernard Aboba wrote:

>>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).
>
>  
>