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

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

Jouni and Glen,

Can you be exact about what text in the current charter proposal you
consider problematic and how you propose to change it?

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:32 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Glen Zorn; dime at ietf.org; iesg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] WG Review: Recharter of Diameter 
> Maintenance and Extensions(dime)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >>
> >>
> >> 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,
> 
> I posted on this topic already earlier (probably missed in 
> the mail flood). I share the concern Glen has regarding the 
> RADIUS compatibility.
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Jouni
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
>