Subject: [Geopriv] RE: RE: RE: RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv

From: "Adrangi, Farid" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:38:03 -0800

Hi Mark,
Not yet!  As you know, we are trying to reach consensus whether UserName
(1) rewrite will be sufficient or there is a need for the new attribute
(currently discussed in GSMA).  There has been couple of
clarification-related questions posted on eap WG on RFC 3579 -- but we
haven't got any answers from the authors yet. 
BR,
Farid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Grayson (mgrayson) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:09 PM
> To: Adrangi, Farid; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; John Schnizlein (jschnizl)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv
> 
> 
> Farid
> 
> Is the chargeable identity draft available?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Adrangi, 
> Farid
> Sent: 17 February 2004 21:11
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; John Schnizlein (jschnizl)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv
> 
> 
> 
> > Is there any chance that the GSMA could bring their requirements
> > to the IETF, so that we can ensure we don't have too many
> > conflicting requirements & also have a chance to understand
> > what are the real requirements?  I know the IETF has had 
> > misunderstandings
> > in the past with respect to 3GPP requirements.
> > 
> 
> [FA] Yes.  Actually, I believe Jouni K. has already sent an 
> LS from GSMA
> to IETF (Bernard / David Nelson) on this.  
> 
> BR,
> Farid
> 
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
> 

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv