Re: [Dime] WG Review: Recharter of Diameter Maintenance and Extensions(dime)

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn at comcast.net>]

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca at avaya.com] writes:

> Glen,
> 
> Rechartering and the "hum" for adoption of a document as WG item need
> not be necessarily serialized. Rechartering is about approving to work
> on a specific problem. The "hum" acknowledges (or not) that a certain
> document is good enough to be the 00 version of the WG I-D that will
> provide a solution to the problem. Of course, if rechartering is not
> approved the "hum" will not have any effect, but otherwise some time
> may
> be won by runing the "hum" and the rechartering review in parallel.

I see.  Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of the problem in the revised
charter, either, unless it is your opinion that realm-based redirection
would be an extension to the Diameter Base Protocol (not unreasonable). 

On a different topic: the new charter contains the sentence "There is
on-going work on defining RADIUS extensions and the DIME WG will ensure that
work done in RADEXT is also available for Diameter."  This is an incredibly
poor idea: it's bad enough to persist in allowing RADIUS to be "extended"
(though there's little real danger of that happening in the radext WG ;-),
but to tie Diameter & RADIUS together at the hip is practically criminal.
Backward compatibility with RADIUS is fine; on-going, _forward_
compatibility is not.  This was discussed, as you know, on the dime list
with no objections to the idea of limiting RADIUS-Diameter compatibility;
however the offending sentence remains.

...