headers
Jari Arkko | 6 Sep 16:40

review of draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt


I have reviewed the latest version of this
draft.

Overall, I liked this version much more
than the previous ones. The new terminology
and problem definitions are great.

There are a few relatively small issues
left, however. Please see below:

ISSUE: RFC 2606 compliance.

>          Figure 1: Two credentials, three possible access networks

The examples in this figure (and elsewhere) need to
conform to RFC 2606, e.g., example.com instead of
example1.com.

ISSUE: NAI hint recommendation strength

>    As a result, network-based AAA routing mechanisms are preferred over
>    user-based selection where sufficient routes have been configured and
>    there is no need for user control.  Where these conditions are not
>    met -- particularly when an attempt to use the network-based routing
>    mechanism has failed -- routing hints can be placed in an NAI as
>    defined in [12]. 

I would like to make the above a bit stronger. How about
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bari, Farooq | 8 Sep 00:06

Re: review of draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt

See responses inline.

BR,

Farooq

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:41 AM
> To: eap <at> frascone.com; jouni.korhonen <at> teliasonera.com
> Subject: [eap] review of draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt
> 
> 
> I have reviewed the latest version of this
> draft.
> 
> Overall, I liked this version much more
> than the previous ones. The new terminology
> and problem definitions are great.
> 
> There are a few relatively small issues
> left, however. Please see below:
> 
> ISSUE: RFC 2606 compliance.
> 
> >          Figure 1: Two credentials, three possible access networks
> 
> The examples in this figure (and elsewhere) need to
> conform to RFC 2606, e.g., example.com instead of
> example1.com.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jari Arkko | 8 Sep 09:06

Re: review of draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt

Bari, Farooq wrote:

>>I don't think we should talk about SSIDs here because
>>[13] explicitly uses realms, not SSIDs (and the proliferation
>>of new Id Request parameters would be harmful). If
>>MNCs are embedded in NAIs, this does not really reduce
>>the length all that much. I think this leaves only the PANA
>>example, even if the general point is valid.
>>
>>    
>>
>[Bari, Farooq] Agree. Bernard had comment on the same part. Propose the
>following text.
>
>Since RFC 1035 [1] enables FQDNs to be up to 255 octets in length, this
>may not enable the announcement of many realms. The use of other network
>identifiers than domain names is also possible, for instance the PANA
>protocol uses a free form string and an SMI  Network Management Private
>Enterprise Code [17], or Mobile Network Codes embedded in NAIs as
>specified in 3GPP.
>  
>
Ok.

--Jari

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bert Weiner | 8 Sep 00:33
Picon

Re: review of draft-ietf-eap-netsel-problem-04.txt

To our friends, relatives, and colleagues:

We are sharing this information about a venture capital investment club of
which we are members, with people and organizations who may want to consider
buying preconstruction real estate from a developer at a discount and then
assigning (“flipping”) it profitably, before closing, to another buyer.  Our
club produces a minimum total profitability of 40%, and structures these
transactions in a way that avoids all risk to its members.  This, of course,
will strike you as too good to be true.  As you read further, however, you
will realize that by shifting all risk out of the member and into the
developer, high profitability with no risk is, indeed, quite attainable. 

Membership in the club is by invitation only.  We invite you to learn more
about it, and then, if you’d like, to apply for membership.  The minimum
commitment to invest is $100,000 (which can control more than $1,000,000
worth of preconstruction real estate).  If you’d like, your investment can
be part of a self-directed retirement account (IRA, 401(k), etc.), or can be
in the name of your business or yourself. 

 Briefly, each club member contracts for the purchase of a unit in a real
estate developer's commercial or residential project, and deposits into
escrow about 10% of about 85% of the developer’s preconstruction price.  The
member’s purchase contract is then assigned (without the member closing), at
100% of the preconstruction price, to a secondary purchaser. The member’s
escrow deposit is always safe because neither the developer nor the club has
access to it (thus avoiding loss to the member if the developer becomes
bankrupt or otherwise fails to complete the project).  The member’s profit
also is protected against the risk of a market decline, because the member’s
price is reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of the decline, thus
leaving the profit margin intact.  Upon settlement by the secondary
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane