[12:48:14] HannesTschofenig joins the room [13:16:34] dromasca joins the room [13:16:45] hi hannes [13:20:53] david.mark.jones joins the room [13:20:59] david.mark.jones leaves the room [13:21:08] Hi Dan [13:21:17] i will relay your questionjs [13:21:26] do you get voice? [13:22:03] Yes, I am listening to the audio stream [13:26:19] We will certainly progress them through the group. [13:26:39] We certainly have to check the depth of the reviews. [13:27:21] Avi was the only person in the DIME group who expressed interest in the document. He did, however, not review it. [13:27:35] The PROTO shepherd, either Victor or myself, will have to review it as well. [13:30:35] I cannot retrieve the slides from the page. Did you access the slides? [13:31:43] Nobody has a comment on the document? [13:32:27] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/dime-0.ppt [13:32:52] produces "404: Page Not Found" [13:35:44] From the opinion in the room it appears that there is not enough interest for doing work on the Diameter API document? Did I got that wrong via the audio stream? [13:36:36] you got it correct [13:36:57] unless there is consistent support in the next two weeks - pull the plug [13:38:29] qos attributes [13:38:44] mark jones [13:44:48] ron_kehno@jabber.scha.de joins the room [13:47:09] diameter-erp [13:47:19] sebasteien decugis [13:50:04] IETF joins the room [13:52:00] Even without ERP you can have user's in the local domain [13:52:26] The user can choice the NAI [13:52:55] There may be users served by the local domain and by different domains. [13:54:12] Why do folks argue about basic Diameter routing? [13:57:49] Woj.Dec joins the room [13:58:50] IETF leaves the room [13:58:51] dromasca leaves the room [14:00:20] dromasca joins the room [14:00:44] i am back - got disconnected [14:00:51] Has someone implemented the ERP protocol (not the Diameter part, just the core ERP stuff)? [14:02:23] Thanks [14:03:22] TomTaylor joins the room [14:08:09] Woj.Dec leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [14:08:09] Woj.Dec joins the room [14:09:15] I am in favor of a new app-id [14:09:47] Woj.Dec leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [14:09:47] Woj.Dec joins the room [14:10:16] dromasca leaves the room [14:10:17] We will have to tackle these open issues on the list. No time for that [14:12:43] We need to move on with the presentations. [14:13:00] We cannot address all the open issues [14:13:07] dromasca joins the room [14:13:42] nat-control [14:17:23] the protocol document should be submitted as a WG item [14:17:38] but not the protocol analysis document [14:17:43] that will not become a WG item [14:18:48] but it is very valuable to have this analysis, as we will be asked for this information. [14:19:49] Jouni has a presentation at the same time in the MEXT meeting [14:22:36] IETF joins the room [14:22:36] IETF has set the subject to: dime [14:22:36] IETF leaves the room [14:22:50] Woj.Dec leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [14:22:50] Woj.Dec joins the room [14:23:23] pcn [14:23:26] tom taylor [14:24:17] davemitton joins the room [14:28:41] I have a couple of comments for the document. It unfortunately does not re-use anything from the previous QoS parameter & QoS attribute work. I am, however, happy to work with the authors on these technical issues. [14:29:46] Yes, they are. [14:29:53] The QoS parameters are similar [14:30:12] and the QoS classifiers is also similar [14:30:32] Glen, the QoS attribute work is not about RSVP [14:31:01] Sure, there are PCN specific parts in there as well. [14:32:24] I can give you more precise comments, Tom. [14:33:59] webauth [14:34:05] xiaoming fu [14:39:37] it is a small sub-set of the Diameter SIP application [14:40:01] the diameter SIP application turned out to be quite SIP specific [14:40:49] Woj.Dec leaves the room [14:41:10] this document re-uses the relevant AVPs from the Diameter SIP application document [14:42:26] realm-based-redirect [14:42:29] tom [14:46:32] dromasca leaves the room [14:53:10] dromasca joins the room [14:55:44] My investigations on the transition concluded that there isn't really a need to translate RADIUS to Diameter (and vice versa) [14:56:27] Nobody seems to be doing that. [14:57:31] Regarding Wimax: Currently most Wimax RADIUS and Diameter work is still on paper. We will have to wait and see how their deployments will work out. [14:59:01] @Stefan: That's what people are doing. People use Dual-Stack mechanisms [14:59:51] Separate RADIUS and Diameter stacks [15:00:14] Because the transports are not compatible. [15:01:35] Do we want to make the data incompatible too? [15:02:02] How do you mean that, Dave? [15:03:37] I was trying to find problems with current deployments [15:03:45] and I have have spoken to operators about that. [15:03:58] I suggest that Bernard works on that [15:04:04] Sorry, I don't have complete context of this discussion.... the audio is not working for me [15:04:31] Regarding Bernard -- I was referring to the transition document. [15:05:12] I'll shutup and read the minutes... [15:05:13] Who was speaking on the microphone regarding NASREQ? [15:05:52] Bernard now [15:05:52] discussion between lionel and bernard [15:09:54] dromasca leaves the room [15:11:47] dromasca joins the room [15:15:49] dromasca leaves the room [15:18:56] dromasca joins the room [15:19:01] Isn't the transport of ERP keys defined already in the Diameter ERP document? [15:19:32] Can someone ask this question on the microphone? [15:20:39] Why do we want to make the key transport more generic? [15:20:54] It isn't that we have so many document that send keys around. [15:23:08] EAP [15:23:09] ERP [15:25:08] But they are not going to re-use this new document then the 3GPP will not be using it [15:25:17] (that was my response to Lionel) [15:27:04] I would be really surprised if they suddently dump their existing attributes to have a harmonized key transport. [15:27:15] Glen, do you really think that's what they are going todo? [15:27:32] future hums [15:31:36] dromasca leaves the room [15:32:22] The problem statement in the draft is sometimes related. But it does not provide the same amount of informatoin. [15:32:38] This is not floor control. [15:33:21] We would like to get some additional background on the documents. [15:34:32] if you, for example, plan to implement something then please state it. If you did investigations regarding deployment then the group needs to know about it. It is valuable information. [15:54:14] Thanks for the good meeting. [16:00:07] davemitton leaves the room [16:01:40] ron_kehno@jabber.scha.de leaves the room [16:03:04] TomTaylor leaves the room [17:19:58] HannesTschofenig leaves the room