Subject: [Mip6] Questions on draft-ietf-mip6-radius-01

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:03:35 +0200

Hi,

I have few questions for clarifications on this draft.

Section 8 and the associated notes give an impression that when a NAS 
suggest a local HA _both_ MIP6-HL-Prefix and MIP6-HOA must be present in 
the access-req. I assume this is not the intention as the same prefix 
information is anyway included in both attributes, no?

Why section 9 is not actually referencing related MIP6 work in Dime for 
the possible Diameter translations? E.g. all attributes except 
MIP6-DNS-MO will be covered in Dime's NAS-HAAA document.

In section 9 all AVPs have mandatory bit set in the flag rules table. I 
wonder if this is actually correct. E.g. integrated scenario Diameter 
case would reuse existing applications.

Cheers,
	Jouni

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:39:24 +0100

Hi Jouni,

Jouni Korhonen wrote:
> suggest a local HA _both_ MIP6-HL-Prefix and MIP6-HOA must be present 
> in the access-req. I assume this is not the intention as the same 
> prefix information is anyway included in both attributes, no?
>
> Why section 9 is not actually referencing related MIP6 work in Dime 
> for the possible Diameter translations? E.g. all attributes except 
That's a mistake. I mentioned it during my presentation at the last IETF 
meeting in RADEXT.

>
> In section 9 all AVPs have mandatory bit set in the flag rules table. 
> I wonder if this is actually correct. E.g. integrated scenario 
> Diameter case would reuse existing applications.
I think the table needs to be corrected. I also believe that most of the 
Diameter Considerations sections in various drafts (not only in this 
document) are actually wrong.
If the design of a Diameter application would be so easy why do we need 
to discuss various aspects for a couple of months.

Btw, the attribute format needs to be updated to meet the expectations 
of the RADEXT group.

To summarize: As we move along with the DIME documents we need to get 
the documents in sync.

Ciao
Hannes