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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:27 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; dime at ietf.org; 
> vfajardo at tari.toshiba.com; iesg at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Review: Recharter of Diameter Maintenance and 
> Extensions(dime) 
> 
> 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). 

Something on this lines. The  WG decided to use extensions as a generic
denomination of many applications of various kinds so that the text
needs not be changed each time. There is always an opportunity to
express concerns when a deliverable is out of what would be a
reasonable extension. 

> 
> 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.
> 

I am not sure that the intention of this sentence is such a tight
interdependence or forward compatibility as you fear. I would let
however Hannes and Victor to comment first, 

Dan

> ...
> 
>