See below...
On 2008-07-30 09:22, Sun, Dong (Dong) wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Concerning your comment:
> ""The main information is conveyed by the Rw interface:
>
> o Resources reservation and/or allocation request for media flows;
> o QoS handling request such as packet marking and policing to use;
> o Gate control (opening/closing) request for a media flow;
> o NAPT and NAT traversal requesting the necessary address mapping
> information;
> o Resource usage information request and report for media flows"
>
> The IANA Considerations of RFC3588 says:
>
> "Diameter is not intended as a general purpose protocol, and
> allocations SHOULD NOT be made for purposes unrelated to
> authentication, authorization or accounting."
>
> I would like to ask whether there has been discussion of the apparent
> conflict between these two statements. It doesn't seem that the Rw
> interface
> is primarily a AAA interface; the resource reservation, QOS policy and
> NAT
> traversal signaling in particular do not seem to be AAA functions.
>
> I think the draft should at least explain why it is OK to ignore
> the SHOULD NOT in RFC3588."
>
> In fact, the Diameter is being extended for a variety of applications
> that do not look like a pure AAA functions, for example, in the IETF
> DIME, we are developing a similar document for QoS application.
> Moreover, to some extent, the Rw interface can be viewed as sort of
> authorization interface in the context of the AAA.
>
> Does it help answer your question?
Well, it helps, but IMHO Rw seems to have more functions than
just AAA. However, if your comment applies to other extensions
as well as Tw, this becomes a comment on draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis.
IMHO the SHOULD NOT statement that I quoted needs to be
significantly modified (at the moment it's identical to RFC3588).
So both my comments on your draft are actually comments on 3588bis.
Thanks
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
