Hi all,
there seems to be a misunderstanding here.
We have a working group document with agreed authors.
The only question therefore is what the group wants to go into the
existing document - the content. No new document will be added to the
DIME milestones.
What Sebastien should be asking the group is whether the content in
draft-sdecugis-dime-diameter-erp-01.txt should be included in the next
version of draft-ietf-dime-erp.
I personally think that draft-ietf-dime-erp-01 could have included the
updated text already since we discussed it on the list. Anyway, ...
In any case, it is good to ask the group whether this significant cha
nge
s
answer: I believe that this is the right direction, as I indicated
previously on the list.
Ciao
Hannes
________________________________
From: dime-bounces at ietf.org [
mailto:dime-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Julien Bournelle
Sent: 09 June, 2009 10:02
To: Sebastien Decugis
Cc:
dime at ietf.org;
hokey at ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] New draft for Diameter ERP: poll for
adoption
Hello,
See inline,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Sebastien Decugis
<sdecugis at nict.go.jp> wrote:
Hi all DIME and HOKEY members,
I have gone forward
on the
>created a new draft
[1] with the same content (re-organized, hopefully for
clarity) as I
presented during last DIME meeting in IETF#74. The main
change with
current draft-ietf-dime-erp-00 is the use of a new
separate Diameter
application for messages exchanged between the NAS and
the ER server.
I would like to poll the people interested in this topic
about the
adoption of this new document for Diameter ERP (in which
case it would
become draft-ietf-dime-erp-01). I don't know if this can
be done before
the next IETF meeting, or at least during the meeting in
Stockholm?
AFAIK, this is not how things are working at IETF. The WG has
already a WG document cal
led draf
ich is
supposed to reflect the current WG consensus. We can't arrive with a new
individual submission and just bypass the current WG I-D. At least, I
never saw that.
Having said that, we have an issue with the current WG document
concerning use of a new Application-ID or reuse of the Diameter EAP. My
understanding was that we were a little blocked because of an
architectural issue concerning the HOKEY server in regards to AAA/EAP
server and because of a routing issue. So I'd like to know what has
changed from this point.
Note that I'm not against your proposal per se. We just have to
get a consensus.
Julien
Thank you for reading, and eventually providing your
comments.
Sebastien.
[1]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sdecugis-dime-diameter-erp-01.
txt
--
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp)
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
______________________
HOKEY mailing list
HOKEY at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
