Subject: [Emu] 答复: Re: Diameter AVPs for Channel Binding

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 02:35:06 +0000

衰，开盘被天天股份骗下了车。

从我的诺基亚手机发送
-----原始邮件-----
自:Dan Harkins
发送时间: 2010/12/04 01:34:53
至:Sam Hartman
抄送:[email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Re: [Emu] Diameter AVPs for Channel Binding

  Hi Sam,

  I know you have expressed your desire to use an existing registry
to identify channel binding information, I just don't recall hearing
you say why it's a good idea. Could you explain the benefits (once
more) of using an existing registry versus rolling our own?

  If we use an existing registry I still think there are going to be
some link-level information that might not be in the existing registry
and we're going to have to roll our own registry to some extent anyway.
As a for instance (and this example may be contrived), there might be
some provider that charges more for an 11n connection than an 11a/b/g
connection. It might be valuable to bind this information to the
channel to prevent billing issues later but I am not aware of an
attribute in an existing registry to support this.

  regards,

  Dan.

On Mon, November 22, 2010 8:28 am, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
> Hannes, at the EMU meeting we were discussing  whether there are any
> attributes we're likely to want to bind to in EAP channel binding that
> are in the diameter rather than RADIUS namespace.
> I asked for your thoughts and you said you'd have to look into it.
>
> Any chance you could get input (with appropriate context) from the
> Diameter community on this issue?
>
> --Sam
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>

_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu