Subject: nasreq Re: bounce

From: [email-masked] (Patrice Calhoun)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:52:26 -0700

I've CC'ed myself on this e-mail because pat.calhoun@eng seemed to stop working
this morning. Although I've fixed it, it will take 24 hours to take effect,
therefore I would appreciate if you reply to keep [email-masked] in the
recipient list.

I agree with you that describing the RADIUS limitations would be an interesting
exercise, and as it turns out I just finished doing so. The new DIAMETER 
framework document was recently re-written from scratch and has a whole
section on the know RADIUS problems. The document then continues to describe
how the DIAMETER protocol fixes these problems.

I agree that backward RADIUS compatibility would be nice, but complete
compatibility with the existing protocol is nearly impossible. What needs to
be done is to develop a protocol that can:
1. allow servers to perform protocol translation with minimal overhead
2. minimize configuration by re-using the existing RADIUS dictionary, and
3. allow RADIUS user profiles to be used unchanged.

More than this we are talking about no changes to the protocol, and that would
unfortunately not solve the known RADIUS problems.

PatC
BTW, The new framework (DIAMETER) document was re-written from scratch (finally)
and has a whole section on RADIUS problems, followed by a section on how 
DIAMETER solves them.

As far as backward compatibility
>>
>>>Mark,
>>>
>>>Here are my comments on the draft. Sorry they are so extensive that it
>>>looks like most of the I-D is included in this e-mail. I did it this way
>>>because in most cases some context is needed to understand the comment.
>>>
>>>Good work, btw.
>>
>>I don't think I had any serious problems with Pat's concerns. But a high 
>>level question for me would be Radius backwards compatibility of this 
>>whole exercise.
>>
>>I think that it is mandatory that our criteria and the solutions that 
>>result show backwards compatibility with RADIUS or it won't be of much 
>>value to the industry. OTOH, it is good that we describe the limitations 
>>of RADIUS in a way that points us to a better solution. Phrasing that can 
>>be difficult, but some of us have had a lot of practice lately. :)
>>
>