: RFC 4005: Getting to DONE

We have been discussing this for quite a while.  In a message posted to
the AAA WG on May 6, 2005, I suggested the following course of action:
(see http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/aaa-wg/msg00104.html)

a. Go ahead with Dave's separate document on translation of RFC 2865
non-conformant VSAs.

b. Add text to NASREQ restricting the length of AVPs 1-255 OR add
a header flag for use by RADIUS/Diameter gateways.

c. Consider an alternative Diameter/RADIUS interoperability mechanism,
such as encapsulation.

Subsequent discussion on the mailing list appears to indicate that there
is WG consensus to move forward in this direction.

Are there any objections to this?

Note that of the above issues, only b) is gating for the publication of
RFC 4005; items a) and c) can be handled as separate documents.

Unless I am missing something, we therefore are waiting on a specific
proposal relating to b).  This does not seem like a huge problem, so I
would like to see proposed text by the end of this week.

Comments welcome.

On Thu, 12 May 2005, RFC Editor wrote:

> Authors,
>
> We still have not yet received any instruction regarding
> <draft-ietf-aaa-diameter-nasreq-17.txt>.  Please let us know how best
> to proceed as soon as possible.
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/sg