Subject: Issue6: Session Identifier or SPIs

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:38:13 +0300

Hi,

The message format (Issue9) contains Session-Id AVP [Issue6]. Have we reached consensus about the Session-Id?

http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue6

- Dan

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:31:52 -0700

> http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue6

Currently there is no objection to introducing a session identifier in PANA
protocol. So, we can go ahead with that.

But we still need to work out details.

- Format: I think we can keep the format of the identifier unspecified. We
can recommend Diamater format, but give the freedom of choice to deployment.
This should be OK as this is a transient with local-scope indetifier.

- Usage: IMO, it should be generated by the PAA. For a fresh PaC,
PANA_success can deliver it to the PaC. If PaC has a still valid session
identifier, it can present it along with PANA_start. Both PaC and PAA should
include the session identifier in PANA-reauth, PANA_disconnect,
PANA_revocation. 

Hopefully we won't need something like "change identifier." If the PaC does
not present it during PANA_start, it gets a new one with PANA_success. Even
if PaC present one during PANA_start, PAA can ignore it and assign a new
one.

I don't know if these make sense, but at least would start a discussion....

Alper

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 16:14:05 -0700

and do we want to support multiple "sessions" at the same time, or assume
there is only one active session at a time. Latter means that we don't have
to carry session id in  every message to differentiate among several. A
newly issued session id by PAA invalidates the previous one.

Alper