Subject: [Dime] Re: Next Steps for draft-garcia-dime-aaa-uri-00.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:21:27 +0300

I think there hasn't been any discussion on this e-mail, so let me think 
out loud...

- As a minimum, we should take an action with IANA and register what is 
otherwise defined in RFC 3588. Does anyone disagree that the lack of 
registration of the AAA URI scheme with IANA is an oversight that we 
ought to fix?

- On doing so, we can rework the schema definition or leave it as is. 
Since I suspect there might be already deployments which are able to 
understand AAA URIs as defined in RFC 3588, I would propose not doing 
any change to the AAA URI scheme, and just do the IANA registration.

Proposal #1: Register with IANA the current AAA URI scheme definition as 
per RFC 3588.

- The other thing we should discuss is whether we are happy with this 
URI scheme or not. In my opinion the current AAA URI scheme does not 
follow the guidelines for URI Generic Syntax described in RFC 3986, but 
none has complained so far. So, we don't need to fix something for which 
there isn't a complain

Proposal #2: Do not create a new (potentially 'Diameter') URI scheme (a 
successor of the AAA URI scheme) until people complain that the current 
AAA URI scheme has problems. We are not there yet, we are not even sure 
if someone is using AAA URIs at all.

I would like to hear comments about the proposal

/Miguel

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Miguel discovered a bug in RFC 3588 regarding the definition of the 
> "aaa" and "aaas" scheme. His presentation at the IETF#66 DIME working 
> group meeting showed that we have several options. There was no clear 
> conclusion and we agreed to move the discussion to the list.
> 
> Please find the draft at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/draft-garcia-dime-aaa-uri-00.txt
> 
> Slide 5 of http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/dime-9/sld1.htm 
> defines possible next steps:
> 
> * We don’t care, so we do nothing
> * We fix the IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme in a backwards compatible way, 
> and we register with IANA.
> * We register with IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme (with no changes towards 
> RFC 3588) and work in a definition of a ‘diameter’ URI scheme that need 
> not necessarily be backwards compatible with the AAA URI scheme.
> * We register with IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme (with no changes towards 
> RFC 3588).
> 
> Please state your opinion. Please let us also know if you have no clue 
> what the stuff is about.
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes & John
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:32:10 +0200

Hi all,
Hi Miguel,

thanks for your feedback and your assessment.

There is one big question to the group: Is someone actually using AAAS?
Does someone plan use it?

Based on the SIP discussions around SIPS I get the impression that
a) AAAS is not really specified sufficiently enough and
b) the definition of AAAS might not offer the perceived security benefit 
(as SIPS does not provide security).

If we still like the AAAS concept then we should take a look at
draft-audet-sip-sips-guidelines-03.txt since the aspects are extremely 
similar. In fact, we could just copy-and-paste some parts from the 
sips-guidelines document and replace the occurrence of SIP with Diameter.

I am working on a short text that addresses some aspects that are 
relevant for our work. I think we need to discuss this issue.

Ciao
Hannes

Miguel Garcia schrieb:
>> Slide 5 of 
>> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/dime-9/sld1.htm defines 
>> possible next steps:
>>
>> * We fix the IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme in a backwards compatible 
>> way, and we register with IANA.
>> * We register with IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme (with no changes 
>> towards RFC 3588) and work in a definition of a ‘diameter’ URI scheme 
>> that need not necessarily be backwards compatible with the AAA URI 
>> scheme.
>> * We register with IANA the AAA/AAAS URI scheme (with no changes 
>> towards RFC 3588).
>>