RE: [NSIS] RE: policy control for AAA & common signalling applica tionfuncti ons

["Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>]

Ok (this is what I expected). But in that case,
the common functionality is the identification of
the peer in the signalling relationship, and at least
partly I suspect this is already provided by GIMPS
(if applications want to use that function) - there
are still some questions about how applications 
control/interact with the way that that identity is
managed and verified (cf. Mike Richardson's security
concerns). 

But I don't think this really has anything to do with
policy control for AAA. (Hence my question might really
be 'is this what Dave was talking about?')

r.

-----Original Message-----
From: john.loughney at nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney at nokia.com] 
Sent: 26 May 2004 14:15
To: Hancock, Robert; hannes.tschofenig at siemens.com;
Yacine.El_Mghazli at alcatel.fr; oran at cisco.com
Cc: nsis at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [NSIS] RE: policy control for AAA & common signalling
applicationfuncti ons


Hi Robert,

> this is part of what I think is being discussed.
> 
> i think a very reasonable deployment approach is to consider that node 
> B uses a backhaul protocol (like radius or diameter or cops or even 
> ldap or ...) to find out the answer, and that how to do this shouldn't 
> be re-invented for every different type of answer that one wants. but 
> i'm not certain how much impact this should have on the wire protocol 
> itself as compared to the implementation inside the node.

The impact is that that the nodes may need to be able to extract a 
reasonable identity from the NSLP/NTLP for the AAA backhaul protocol.

John

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis