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

[jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam at gmail.com>]

Hi Dan,

The following text in the proposed charter:

"The IETF has completed work on the Diameter Base protocol and is
working on revising the base protocol specification. 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."

In my opinion it is not Dime's responsibility to follow what RADEXT  
does and try to align with them. Especially the line "the DIME WG will  
ensure that work done in RADEXT is also available for Diameter" is  
scary. If RADEXT is in a process of upgrading RADIUS with all Diameter  
functionality, why should we care about aligning with them?

I would just write that RADEXT and Dime will work together for the  
general good of AAA. There are topics that concern both.. like  
internationalization etc.

CHeers,
	Jouni





On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> 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