RE: : Re: authors 48 hours: RFC 4005

Bernard Aboba <> supposedly scribbled:

> This looks fine to me.  Any objections?

I give up.  In the message containing my non-suggestions
(non-suggestions because they didn't begin with the word "Issue" --
talk about quibbling!) I listed 3 options for (partially) fixing
this problem: a flag in the Diameter header signifying that the
packet had been translated from RADIUS, the creation of a new AVP
signifying the same, or the artificial limitation of the length of
Diameter AVPs w/codes <= 255.  Of these, the last was clearly (to
me, anyway) the worst possible choice, included only for
completeness.  I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that that was
the route taken...
 
> 
> On Mon, 30 May 2005, David Mitton wrote:
> 
>> Suggested changes
>> 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
>>     attributes 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> 
>> 
>> 
>> 9.6.1.  Forwarding a Diameter Vendor AVP as a RADIUS VSA
>> 
>> Add to para 1, first sentence:
>>     For Type codes less than 255, the value field length MUST be
less
>>     than 252 or the AVP will be discarded.
>> 
>> 
>> 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>

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