[17:41:01] --- FDupont has joined
[17:46:20] --- Dave Nelson has joined
[17:46:35] <Dave Nelson> Diameter interop report -- Hannes.
[17:47:12] <Dave Nelson> Base, CC NAS-req aact #GPP
[17:47:25] --- loughney has joined
[17:47:34] <Dave Nelson> Issues with certificate formates.
[17:47:48] <Dave Nelson> SCTP worked OK w/ 2 companies.
[17:48:07] <Dave Nelson> Problems w/ EAP.
[17:48:46] <Dave Nelson> Report contains list of test and number of implementations that supported each feature.
[17:49:08] <Dave Nelson> Should hter ebe anothe rinterop event?
[17:49:27] <Dave Nelson> Who willing to participate?
[17:49:41] <Dave Nelson> Potential for another by the end of the year.
[17:49:54] <Dave Nelson> A few in the room interested.
[17:50:10] <Dave Nelson> Presentation from Miguel.
[17:50:21] <Dave Nelson> AAA and AAAS URI
[17:50:40] <Dave Nelson> Was a WG item in AAA WG.
[17:51:54] <Dave Nelson> Problems is that RFC3588 does not provide for IANA registration of these URI schemes.
[17:52:13] <Dave Nelson> Started as an IANA registration request.
[17:52:26] <Dave Nelson> Idea to updage 3588.
[17:52:45] <Dave Nelson> But other problems surfaced...
[17:53:15] <Dave Nelson> Make compatible w/ RFC 2396 and 3896.
[17:53:40] --- rjaksa has joined
[17:54:15] <Dave Nelson> RFC 4385 says not to use hiearchical URIs. RFC 4395 says not to use hiearchical URIs unless needed.
[17:55:21] <Dave Nelson> Today it will be too late to deprecate the existing URI suages.
[17:55:34] <Dave Nelson> What is next?
[17:55:43] <Dave Nelson> 1. do nothing.
[17:56:15] <Dave Nelson> risk is that someone registers aaa uri in iana
[17:56:26] <Dave Nelson> 2. fix the ur scheme
[17:56:37] <Dave Nelson> looks liek a challenge
[17:57:08] <Dave Nelson> 3. register w/ inan the rfc 3588 scheme.
[17:57:34] <Dave Nelson> implicit deprecation
[17:57:51] <Dave Nelson> could register an new diameter uri and not aaa
[17:58:23] <Dave Nelson> 4. register the existing ura w/ iana, and do nothing else
[17:59:00] <Dave Nelson> looking for discussion about relative merist of the 4 options
[17:59:32] <Dave Nelson> ability to use dns discovery is important
[17:59:40] <Dave Nelson> so should probably fix it
[18:00:05] <Dave Nelson> so far aaa uri not widely used
[18:00:24] <Dave Nelson> maybe just for diameter cc server
[18:00:41] <Dave Nelson> miguel likes option 3
[18:01:11] <Dave Nelson> glen z is this s stds trk rfc that we ar e"violating"?
[18:01:29] <Dave Nelson> miguel - its a BCP
[18:01:48] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- talk to those w/ implementations
[18:02:14] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- may need to implement both -- old & new uri
[18:03:11] <Dave Nelson> miguel -- could be fodder for 3588 bis
[18:03:20] <Dave Nelson> john l. take it to the list?
[18:03:45] <Dave Nelson> glen z -- option 3 -- do we want people to use the new diamter uri?
[18:04:41] <Dave Nelson> glen z -- we must because we're defining it.
[18:05:11] <Dave Nelson> glen z. -- skip the registration step, and register the diameter uri
[18:06:05] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- separate issue, registration and transport security, and hiearchical uris
[18:06:28] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- quick fix to register the aaa uri
[18:06:47] <Dave Nelson> comment -- use a table to sepcify this
[18:07:23] <Dave Nelson> describe the 3 options in the draft
[18:07:35] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- discuss on the list
[18:07:51] <Dave Nelson> john l. -- if no implementations, maybe we just fix it
[18:08:13] <Dave Nelson> presentation by Victor Fajardo
[18:08:42] <Dave Nelson> 3588bis iisues in the tracker.
[18:09:00] <Dave Nelson> 23 issues to date, most from the last iterop
[18:10:20] <Dave Nelson> review of inividual issues and status...
[18:10:45] <Dave Nelson> open issues -- issue 1
[18:11:00] <Dave Nelson> advertising realy id
[18:11:15] <Dave Nelson> advertising relay id
[18:11:33] <Dave Nelson> no proposed solution from the room
[18:12:05] <Dave Nelson> comment -- ???
[18:13:47] <Dave Nelson> Question -- why is this issue critical?
[18:13:57] <Dave Nelson> A -- poster thought so.
[18:14:58] <Dave Nelson> john l. -- looking for suggestred solutions on the list
[18:15:52] <Dave Nelson> glen z -- accounting is optional, so presence of relay id measn willing to realy accounting
[18:16:18] <Dave Nelson> issue 3 and 16 -- CER/CEA exchaneg in open state
[18:16:38] <Dave Nelson> proposed solution in the ??
[18:17:08] --- washad has joined
[18:17:11] <Dave Nelson> issue 2 and 5 -- Application id used by common diameter messages
[18:17:59] <Dave Nelson> glen z. -- 3588 should have been 2 documents, 1 for peer communctations, and another set of messages not used by the base protocol.
[18:18:09] <Dave Nelson> use the ap id of the application in those messages
[18:18:18] <Dave Nelson> comment -- agree.
[18:18:54] <Dave Nelson> john l. -- seem to have consensus on this
[18:19:10] <Dave Nelson> issue 15 -- question on duplicate detection
[18:19:25] <Dave Nelson> how long do you store possible duplicates?
[18:19:54] <Dave Nelson> no proposed resoulution on teh lsit
[18:20:13] <Dave Nelson> issue 13 -- why so many app ids?
[18:20:23] <Dave Nelson> should they all match?
[18:20:51] <Dave Nelson> issue 9 and 19 -error codes in tthe wrong place or need clarity
[18:21:40] <Dave Nelson> issue 10
[18:21:58] <Dave Nelson> unclear semantics w.r.t. multiple vendor ids isn vsa
[18:22:12] <Dave Nelson> shouldn't there be only one vendor id?
[18:22:43] <Dave Nelson> commenst -- 3GPP uses one id -- ther rest inaudible
[18:23:24] <Dave Nelson> not multiple uses within a single message
[18:23:35] <Dave Nelson> 0 or 1 id in each avp
[18:23:58] <Dave Nelson> john l. seems reasonable take to laist for confirmation
[18:24:25] <Dave Nelson> on previosu slide, and the number of vendsor ids be 0?
[18:24:32] <Dave Nelson> no, exactly 1
[18:25:05] <Dave Nelson> issue 20 - determine ans offending avp contained within a group avp
[18:25:23] <Dave Nelson> issue 8 -- seting e bit in CER/ message
[18:27:07] <Dave Nelson> comment -- additional information inefficient
[18:27:36] <Dave Nelson> back to issue 8
[18:28:00] <Dave Nelson> semantics of hte exchange is well defined, the reault code is enough
[18:28:54] <Dave Nelson> issue 12 - identity is fqdn + port
[18:29:28] <Dave Nelson> misleading usage?
[18:29:54] <Dave Nelson> issue 14 -- explicit specification on which e-bit is set
[18:30:19] <Dave Nelson> on which class of erro the e-bit is set
[18:30:29] <Dave Nelson> issue 17 -- abnf issue
[18:31:09] <Dave Nelson> trailing [*fixed}
[18:31:55] <Dave Nelson> issue 18 -- clarify re-connect behavior when the disconnect-cause avp is received
[18:32:41] <Dave Nelson> issue 22 -- fetch data request & location update request -- move into base protocol
[18:33:44] <Dave Nelson> issue 23 -- predictive loop detection -- check out route records and compare to route information in the message
[18:33:51] <Dave Nelson> new error codes -- potential loop
[18:34:16] <Dave Nelson> john l. -- this seems like new functionality -- treat as an extension
[18:35:44] <Dave Nelson> john l. chairs and ads will confer about the best way to prepare a 3588bis draft
[18:36:31] <Dave Nelson> Presnetation by Jouni Korhonen
[18:36:48] <Dave Nelson> MIPv6 bootstrapping
[18:37:11] --- FDupont has left: Replaced by new connection
[18:37:28] --- FDupont has joined
[18:39:05] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- any opinions on application vs. service type?
[18:39:59] <Dave Nelson> Presentation by ??
[18:40:23] <Dave Nelson> integrated scenarios solition
[18:40:32] <Dave Nelson> split scenario
[18:42:41] <Dave Nelson> need a new allpication? diameter eap application Ok w/ some new avps?
[18:43:48] <Dave Nelson> glen z. -- 3588 says new mandatory avps defines a new application.
[18:44:12] <Dave Nelson> going further , a new mandatotry to be undestood vlaue for an avp si the same
[18:45:08] <Dave Nelson> comment -- suggesting using same app id -- which one?
[18:45:11] <Dave Nelson> eap?
[18:45:25] <Dave Nelson> glen z. -- what's the rationale?
[18:45:42] <Dave Nelson> MN is authenticated by EAP within IKEv2
[18:45:57] <Dave Nelson> need an app that carreis EAP apackets
[18:48:12] <Dave Nelson> differentiate identities for access vs mobility
[18:48:58] <Dave Nelson> integrated solution is network access plsu what?
[18:49:46] <Dave Nelson> good slides by teh design tam on these aspects
[18:50:01] <Dave Nelson> good slides are avaialabel from teh design team on these aspects
[18:50:26] --- washad has left
[18:50:49] --- FDupont has left
[18:50:58] <Dave Nelson> does this happen isn both scenarios?
[18:51:18] <Dave Nelson> in corner cases w/ split scenrio
[18:53:35] <Dave Nelson> new application sis the right way to go
[18:54:38] <Dave Nelson> glen z. there are lost of avaialbel applicaton ids. why is getting a new one a problem?
[18:55:59] <Dave Nelson> Presentation ny Hannes T. on QoS
[18:56:36] <Dave Nelson> mail list discussions so far, no draft yet, a dinenr meeting held alst evening
[18:57:05] <Dave Nelson> different approaches - there building blocks
[18:57:31] <Dave Nelson> packet classification, qos parameter description, usage scenarios
[18:57:51] --- FDupont has joined
[18:58:07] --- FDupont has left
[18:58:07] <Dave Nelson> qos parameter usage
[18:58:23] <Dave Nelson> seems unlikely to have a common set of parameters
[18:58:47] <Dave Nelson> especially one set that works everywhere
[18:59:03] <Dave Nelson> group parameter together an classify asn a qos model
[18:59:28] <Dave Nelson> some flexinility and room for extensibility is deaired
[18:59:38] <Dave Nelson> usage scenarios
[19:00:30] --- LOGGING STARTED
[19:01:50] --- Dave Nelson has joined
[19:01:55] <Dave Nelson> test
[19:02:15] <Dave Nelson> small hicup in jabber...
[19:03:01] <Dave Nelson> question -- replacement for COPS?
[19:03:13] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- good question
[19:03:22] <Dave Nelson> hannes -- CPOS interest waning
[19:05:02] <Dave Nelson> john l. -- different deployment model, not a replacement for cpos
[19:05:36] <Dave Nelson> commenst -- folks like to use a single protocol for these things
[19:07:36] <Dave Nelson> the qos parameters only make sens to teh endpoints
[19:07:51] <Dave Nelson> why can't we use an octet string?
[19:08:04] <Dave Nelson> john l/ -- different opinions on these
[19:08:49] <Dave Nelson> comment -- what degree of flexibility? can go so far as to be on a per implemention bassis.
[19:09:03] <Dave Nelson> hannes - discuss on tehlsit
[19:11:53] <Dave Nelson> Presentation on Diameter Base and CCA MIBs by Glen Zorn
[19:12:57] <Dave Nelson> first cut at mibs, but looking for constructive feedback
[19:13:18] <Dave Nelson> local configurration and state objects
[19:13:58] <Dave Nelson> counters, for messages, packets, etc.
[19:15:25] <Dave Nelson> traps for failures, errors, transient failures
[19:16:18] <Dave Nelson> questions: shoudl only count messages defined in section 5 of 3588?
[19:16:50] <Dave Nelson> question: currently allow the creation of peers?
[19:17:12] <Dave Nelson> on to teh dcca mib
[19:17:44] <Dave Nelson> contains local configurations, useful? can they be different form base?
[19:18:00] <Dave Nelson> message counters, on a per perr basis
[19:18:33] <Dave Nelson> questions; dcca is really client server, not peer to peer
[19:18:50] <Dave Nelson> should ther be separate client sn server mibs
[19:19:11] <Dave Nelson> question: how to cound daac requests/
[19:19:23] <Dave Nelson> can have sessiosn without request ever being sent
[19:20:34] <Dave Nelson> do we want to allow creation of peer entries?
[19:20:57] <Dave Nelson> victoer -- on nase -- allow creation of real entries?
[19:21:32] <Dave Nelson> glen -- there are stats for realsm but they ar ediscovered, not created
[19:21:50] <Dave Nelson> lohn l. woh read? ans. 1
[19:22:52] <Dave Nelson> there will be updated drafts in a couple of weeks
[19:24:36] <Dave Nelson> Presentation on Auditing by Avri Doria
[19:25:25] <Dave Nelson> hard state situations
[19:25:52] <Dave Nelson> failover w/ replication vs. w/o replicatio
[19:26:17] <Dave Nelson> soft state situatiosn
[19:26:25] <Dave Nelson> after timeouts have expired
[19:26:37] <Dave Nelson> not included in the -00 draft
[19:27:05] <Dave Nelson> useful function, becoming a necessary function
[19:27:28] <Dave Nelson> look at the requirementts, flush out the use cases, coodrinat eith other SDos going toi use it
[19:28:26] <Dave Nelson> glen z. -- what deos auditing mean?
[19:28:40] <Dave Nelson> A- to request update of the state, to be sure the state is correct
[19:28:51] <Dave Nelson> ETSI TISPAN uses the word auditing
[19:29:10] <Dave Nelson> checking to be sure tist still correct
[19:31:12] <Dave Nelson> john l. hum for interest -- yest ther eis some, none opposed
[19:31:36] <Dave Nelson> Presentation by Tina Tsou on Diameter ROuting
[19:33:32] <Dave Nelson> geln z -- would this redirect realm avp etc be optionsl?
[19:33:36] <Dave Nelson> A-yes
[19:34:03] <Dave Nelson> john l. discussion of soemthing like an application level gateway
[19:35:04] <Dave Nelson> john l. hum -- not much support -no consesns
[19:35:27] <Dave Nelson> Presentation by John Loughney on Filter rUELS IN radext
[19:36:33] <Dave Nelson> request for IPFIlterRule in RADEXT from 3GPP(2)?
[19:37:37] <Dave Nelson> propose that both kinds of filters be supported in RADIUS and Diameter. Needs to be carried forward in a separate draft in DIME.
[19:39:36] <Dave Nelson> dave n. keep it simple
[19:40:13] <Dave Nelson> glen z. original IpFilteRule syntax was a mistage -- should not use a string, but use a grouped avp
[19:41:07] <Dave Nelson> glen z. will write a draft following up on his suggestion
[19:41:34] <Dave Nelson> meeting concluded
[19:41:37] <Dave Nelson> bye
[19:41:41] --- Dave Nelson has left