RE: Charter questions

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> In this discussion I suggested
> the following: Since DIAMETER was not capable of supporting complex
> relationships between users and related QoS/Security/Tunneling behaviors, I
> and others wanted to address this with another protocol. No one had a
> problem with that.

Diameter now does have some functionality for provisioning of tunnels and
QoS behavior on a per-user basis. Has anyone in RAP reviewed the QoS AVP
functionality? 

> Given this, it would be hard to argue that the AAA folks are unaware
> of our activities.

We certainly did talk with you about the issues you describe, and you have
fairly characterized the discussion. Note however, that those discussions
did not cross over into discussions of alternatives for network access
authentication. 

> Also, let's be clear on what the requirements for the Access Bind PIB were:
> 1. Leverage existing QoS definition semantics to construct user specific QoS
> policies.

Diameter currently has an AVP that does this. 

> 2. Because of the dynamic nature of both users (particularly in a mobile
> environment) and services, minimize the cost of setting up policies for a
> new (authenticated) user. In this particular case, both the authentication
> and the policy configuration can be set up in two messages (depending on the
> authentication protocol).

Are we talking about handling network access authentication and
authorization, including EAP as part of this? 

> 3. Feedback/statistics on a per policy basis, rather than per session.

Diameter does not do this. 

>handling all the policies... for the network edge. 

Presumably this also includes authentication and authorization for network
access?