RADIUSEXT BoF Minutes
IETF-59 – Seoul, Korea
Attendees:
Jari Arkko, Glen Zorn , Pasi Eronen,, Serge manning, Osok Song, Joel Halpern, Stefaan Cnodder, Wolfgang Beck, Avi Lior, , Farid
Adrangi, Parviz Yegani. Note: some of the folks were not able to attend due to time conflict with the social event!
Summary:

The group reached consensus that the RADIUEXT charter should focus on three main work categories: LAN attributes, Prepaid, and SIP.

The group also reached consensus that both RADIUS and Diameter protocols are relevant, and that for each work item it shall be determined whether it applies to both (such as attributes usually would) or just RADIUS (e.g. because there already is a corresponding Diameter application). The suggested name of the group would be AAA Extensions WG (AAAEXT).

A number of individuals volunteered to review the currently published drafts in aforementioned categories. The list appears below.
Discussions:

Everyone agreed the proposed work items in the charter should not break RADIUS – i.e., should be backward compatible.

Jari pointed out that it is more appropriate to name the WG AAAEXT as we may want to define some of the LAN attributes in both RADIUS and Diameter. This initiated further discussion on whether both formats should be defined in a single draft or separate ones. Avi expressed concern that RADIUS draft authors may not necessarily be expert in Diameter. Joel said that we should focus on RADIUS, and if someone wants to do it for diameter outside this group, then that’s fine. Jari and Pasi said that creating RADIUS attributes without introducing their equivalence in Diameter may create problem. Furthermore he said we should look at each individual work item, and decide whether we should do it for both (Diameter and RADIUS) or for RADIUS only. For example, SIP and Prepaid should be done for RADIUS only. Joel said that it is easier to charter the WG if we don’t mention Diameter. At the end there was a consensus to do both work in the same group and to consider whether a work item covers both RADIUS and Diameter on a case-by-case basis.

There was a concern about the number of the drafts that were posted on the list. Large number of drafts demonstrats the high interest. But the group felt that this amount of work was not doable, and the charter a large number of work items might also not be possible. Avi pointed out the in the case of PWLAN, discussions on the list requested that we split the PWLAN attributes into several drafts. This created the illusion of tremendous amount of work but it reality many of the drafts are straightforward.
It was decided that it would be best to group the drafts into functional categories in the charter to better represent the work to be accomplished. Avi took this action.

It was also noted that the chairs were pushing work out of the RADIUSEXT WG probably to lessen the load. The action to move the location draft to Geopriv was brought up as an example. Given the Geopriv WG’s expertise in this area this was felt to make sense.

We discussed what work items the WG should focus on. Joel said that he can’t imagine if WG can focus on all the currently submitted drafts. Glen said “are some of them unnecessary?” If not, we should do them. Jari said that we should focus on the important ones. And then we asked everyone their opinion on this and that summarized it to : Prepaid, SIP, and LAN attributes.
Jari suggested that it may also make sense that only the most important LAN attributes are taken to the charter. Joes said we can always recharter should the need arises.

Farid asked who volunteers to be reviewer for the drafts that fall into the specified three work item categories.
Jari Arkko (all), Pasi Eronen (LAN attributes), Joel Halpern (Prepaid), Osok Song (LAN attributes), Parviz Yegani (Prepaid, LAN attributes), David Mariblanca (all - volunteered by Jari), Farid Adrangi (all) and Avi Lior (all) , lionel morand (LAN, Prepaid)

Joel suggested that we should setup a problem tracker database to track the issues submitted against the drafts.