Subject: [Pana] PANA and mandatory/optional behavior

From: "Susan Thomson \(sethomso\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:02:33 -0400

I am reviewing the spec to determine what functionality is mandatory vs
optional to implement. This is important since not all deployment
scenarios require all the supported functionality. 
 
As a start, a few  clarification questions:
 
1) There are deployment scenarios  which do not need separate NAP and
ISP authentication. It appears from the spec that this functionality is
optional to implement.  Is this true? 
 
2) AVPs are defined to have a Mandatory flag. However, I did not see the
settings for this flag specified for each AVP. It would be useful to
have the M  flag setting specified as part of the AVP definition. At
least the following two AVPs seem like they would be candidates for
optional support:
 
--- Notification AVP      (what is the use case for this AVP, by the
way?)
--- Session Lifetime AVP 
 
3) Is the PaC expected to respond to both solicited and unsolicited
PANA-Start-Request messages? This seems to be the case, but I'm not
sure.
 
Overall, I think it would be useful if a section could be added that
lays out the minimal functionality on PAA and PaC that is required for
an implementation to be considered compliant with the spec (messages and
mandatory AVPs).
 
Thanks
Susan
_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:52:23 -0400

> optional to implement.  Is this true? 

Yes.

> have the M  flag setting specified as part of the AVP definition. 

In section 6.3:

"
      Unless otherwise noted, AVPs defined in this document will have
      the following default AVP Flags field settings: The 'M' bit MUST
      be set.  The 'V' bit MUST NOT be set.
"

I think this is sufficient.

> At

All AVPs defined in the base spec are mandatory to support.

Notification AVP is for general purpose notification.
(Related issue: http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue149)

> PANA-Start-Request messages? This seems to be the case, but I'm not

Yes.

> an implementation to be considered compliant with the spec (messages and

Yes, that might be useful.  I'd like to hear opinion from others as
well.

Thank you,

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:01:56 -0700

> > an implementation to be considered compliant with the spec (messages
and

I think that's very much deployment scenario dependent. For each
specific scenario, a "PANA profile" can be defined. The profile can
outline which parts of the protocol are used. That's fine, but I think
that's for separate documents to describe. Like, "PANA for 3GPP2", "PANA
for DSL", etc.

Alper