[08:51:28] --- Tina has joined
[08:53:04] --- Tina has left
[18:28:11] --- tina has joined
[18:41:17] --- david has joined
[18:41:31] --- rbless has joined
[18:41:37] --- bert has joined
[18:42:03] --- gdweber has joined
[18:42:48] --- HannesTschofenig has joined
[18:44:45] <HannesTschofenig> Please find the slides at:
[18:44:45] <HannesTschofenig> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=65
[18:44:55] <HannesTschofenig> John started with the agenda overview.
[18:45:09] <HannesTschofenig> Can be found at: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/agenda/dime.txt
[18:45:25] <tina> is anybody remote?
[18:45:27] --- admcd has joined
[18:45:41] <tina> i can not hear
[18:46:46] <HannesTschofenig> John talks about the DiME milestones.
[18:47:23] <HannesTschofenig> Bert says that we don't need to have a MIB in order to go to Draft Standard.
[18:47:25] --- sharonchisholm has joined
[18:47:35] <HannesTschofenig> John says that Glen thought that this would be required.
[18:47:46] <HannesTschofenig> Bert says that it would be good to have one.
[18:48:00] <rbless> tina: is audio bad?
[18:48:16] <tina> can u hear remotely?
[18:48:26] <rbless> Now I'm on site.
[18:48:32] <HannesTschofenig> John suggests that people that have implemented a MIB then they should send it to the list.
[18:49:23] <HannesTschofenig> John reports about the Interop event.
[18:49:39] <HannesTschofenig> It will be April 24-28th in NJ.
[18:50:04] <bert> tina I hear (from others) that audio is working good
[18:50:19] <bert> at least right now
[18:50:41] <tina> ok
[18:50:42] --- wouter has joined
[18:51:10] <david> tina: i don't experience problems right now
[18:51:11] <HannesTschofenig> John talks about the discussions he had on NDAs.
[18:51:32] <HannesTschofenig> Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) for the interop.
[18:51:44] <david> I do use amplified speakers and that makes a lot better. Headset should also help.
[18:52:05] <HannesTschofenig> It is not yet know whether NDAs should be signed. In discussion
[18:52:29] <HannesTschofenig> So, the first speaker is ready: Interop Test plans - Victor Fajardo - 10 mintues http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/draft-fajardo-dime-interop-test-suite-00.txt
[18:53:50] <HannesTschofenig> Victor mentions that the document only refers to the specifications.
[18:54:22] <HannesTschofenig> The document defines a test topology that can be used for a number of Diameter applications.
[18:56:07] <rbless> Hannes: do also some tests on end-to-end and hop-by-hop security, otherwise people only use OpenSSL, provide some BCP to see what is used out there
[18:56:35] <HannesTschofenig> There is no end-to-end security in Diameter. I was only talking about the hop-by-hop stuff.
[18:57:30] <rbless> Sorry, missed that (just took it from the slide)
[18:58:17] --- wouter has left: Logged out
[18:58:31] <HannesTschofenig> I just mentioned that there are some difficulties selecting the proper test cases. Example for Diameter Credit Control was given
[18:59:47] <HannesTschofenig> Victor talks about the different test cases, e.g., CC, EAP, NASREQ
[19:01:04] <HannesTschofenig> Victor mentiones the difficulty with MIPv4 tests due to the topology complexity.
[19:01:20] <HannesTschofenig> Victor asks for reviews
[19:01:44] <HannesTschofenig> John will send a call for review to the interop participants.
[19:02:06] <HannesTschofenig> Next presentation Discussion of IPFilterRule and RadExt efforts - Mauricio Sanchez - 10 minutes http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-filter-rules-00.txt
[19:03:14] <david> How many?
[19:04:06] <HannesTschofenig> Mauricio talks about the work in RADEXT on the IP filters.
[19:05:04] --- admcd has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:06:37] <HannesTschofenig> Short discussion on the status of the RADEXT document and the missing functionality to express IPsec protected traffic.
[19:06:56] <HannesTschofenig> Mauricio now jumps into the description of the NAS-Traffic-Rule
[19:07:52] <HannesTschofenig> Examples are shown.
[19:08:24] <HannesTschofenig> RADEXT Filter Rules draft does not contain Diameter Compatibility section.
[19:09:46] <HannesTschofenig> John: If RADEXT functionality is a superset then it is not covered by the RADEXT charter.
[19:10:01] <HannesTschofenig> Mauricio does not agree with John.
[19:10:17] <HannesTschofenig> David Nelson says that the RADEXT charter was pretty clear on this subject.
[19:10:34] <HannesTschofenig> David mentions the forward compatibility.
[19:11:44] <HannesTschofenig> John: Bernard mentioned a request from 3GPP about the IP filter rule. John asks whether someone has more information about this request. He mentions that the extra functionality defined in RADEXT should also be added to Diameter.
[19:12:10] --- admcd has joined
[19:12:18] <HannesTschofenig> John suggest to delete the IP filter rule from the base document since it is needed for NASREQ.
[19:12:25] <HannesTschofenig> John suggests to redefine it.
[19:13:07] <HannesTschofenig> John asks people to state their opinion whether this approach would affect their implementation.
[19:13:23] <HannesTschofenig> Glen suggests to define a new attribute that just adds the delta functionality.
[19:13:34] <HannesTschofenig> Glen: 3GPP can suggest whatever they want.
[19:13:55] <HannesTschofenig> John: Some discussions needed.
[19:14:07] <HannesTschofenig> John will contact Bernard to get more information about the 3GPP request
[19:15:07] <rbless> Hannes is next up with Diameter MIPv6
[19:17:58] <rbless> MIPv6 worked on bootstrapping: split scenario (draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-02), integrated scenario little bit more complicated...
[19:18:17] <rbless> draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-00
[19:20:09] <rbless> diameter solutions: draft-tschofenig-dime-mip6-integrated-00 and draft-tschofenig-dime-mip6-split-01
[19:20:32] <rbless> solutions provide backend solutions...
[19:21:46] <rbless> Open issues: split scenario does not cause problems, integrated scenario: application vs. attributes, interworking with NASREQ, MIPv4
[19:23:31] <rbless> John: not time for hum because work in MIP6 not done, but who is interested in this work...
[19:23:38] <rbless> several hands raised...
[19:23:47] <gdweber> about nine
[19:24:15] <rbless> Next up: Hannes with Diameter QoS document
[19:24:34] <rbless> draft-tschofenig-dime-diameter-qos-00
[19:24:47] <rbless> also a radext version available...
[19:25:30] <rbless> worked on these issues since 2003 (draft-alfano-aaa-qosreq-00)...so there is a history
[19:25:40] <rbless> mainly in NSIS WG context
[19:25:49] <rbless> now shifted to DiME
[19:26:43] <rbless> Authorization for QoS signaling->backend authorziation with Diameter
[19:27:26] <rbless> goals: independent from particular QoS signaling protocol (unlike COPS solution)
[19:27:30] <tina> page 6 of the slides
[19:27:52] <rbless> goal QoS parameter description independent from specific link layer technologies
[19:28:06] <tina> should they be Rx and Gx rather than Gq and Go?
[19:28:07] <rbless> ability to deal with different authorization options
[19:28:30] <rbless> still open issues, need more discussion
[19:29:28] <rbless> sometimes questions about alignment with other standardization organizations, like 3GPP(2), TISPAN, but current proposal in DiME more generic
[19:30:11] <gdweber> dozen hands
[19:30:17] <rbless> John Loughney: how many people find it useful to do QoS auth
[19:30:25] <rbless> Yep :-)
[19:30:46] <rbless> Next Up: Diameter AAA API
[19:31:19] <HannesTschofenig> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api/draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-00.txt
[19:32:16] <HannesTschofenig> Glen suggests to rename "Last Call" to "Call" since it is not the last call.
[19:32:32] <tina> :P
[19:32:49] <HannesTschofenig> API is callback based.
[19:33:03] <HannesTschofenig> If people want to see it changed then they need to speak up.
[19:33:10] <HannesTschofenig> This is one of several approaches.
[19:34:00] <HannesTschofenig> David mentions the design goals of the API.
[19:34:20] <HannesTschofenig> (on slide 4 & 5)
[19:34:40] <HannesTschofenig> John mentions that this work is informational.
[19:34:48] <HannesTschofenig> Are there opinions?
[19:35:04] <HannesTschofenig> John suggests to take it on the list.
[19:36:22] <HannesTschofenig> Comment regarding Go/Gq.
[19:36:30] <HannesTschofenig> I should have added Rx/Gx to the slide.
[19:36:55] <HannesTschofenig> As part of the ongoing work Rx/Gx is being worked on. The Rx interface is very close to the Diameter Gq application.
[19:37:33] <tina> however, Rx/Gx has got rid of pull mode of authen token
[19:37:48] <HannesTschofenig> Glen thinks that the API document is not ready for WGLC
[19:37:52] <HannesTschofenig> Right.
[19:37:55] <HannesTschofenig> That's true.
[19:38:05] <gdweber> :-)
[19:38:43] <HannesTschofenig> Go is COPS based whereas Gx is Diameter based
[19:38:58] <HannesTschofenig> Next presentation:
[19:38:59] <HannesTschofenig> Diameter-RADIUS interworking - TBD - 10 minutes http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-01.txt
[19:39:03] <HannesTschofenig> David Mitton
[19:39:07] <gdweber> COPS-PR, i think
[19:39:28] <HannesTschofenig> Yes, I think so too.
[19:39:35] <HannesTschofenig> But folks really disliked it.
[19:39:42] <HannesTschofenig> Hence, they changed it to Diameter.
[19:41:07] <HannesTschofenig> David presented the RADIUS VSA format compared to the Diameter Vendor AVP format.
[19:41:27] <HannesTschofenig> David has written a proposal for translation: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-01.txt
[19:42:29] --- admcd has left
[19:42:46] --- rbless has left
[19:42:51] <HannesTschofenig> David mentions the effect on the documents: RFC 3588/RFC4005 and impact on RADIUS docs not yet clear
[19:43:09] --- sharonchisholm has left
[19:43:30] <HannesTschofenig> David raises the question whether someone actually translates RADIUS to Diameter.
[19:43:42] <HannesTschofenig> It seems that nobody does that.
[19:44:05] <HannesTschofenig> John suggests to have a discussion about this subject. ;
[19:44:12] --- gdweber has left
[19:45:02] <HannesTschofenig> We are done (=kicked out of the room)
[19:49:24] --- bert has left
[19:50:17] --- david has left
[19:52:54] --- HannesTschofenig has left: Replaced by new connection
[19:54:05] --- tina has left