[dhcwg] Revisions to draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 31 August 2004 11:35 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08892; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C26n6-0004Jo-PQ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:27:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C26iO-0002wJ-Fb for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:22:16 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07785 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:22:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C26kL-0000Kx-JF for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:24:18 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2004 07:34:00 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i7VBLgUu022392 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:21:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-2-182.cisco.com [10.86.242.182]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALE99237; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:21:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040831070538.02d62fa8@flask.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:21:38 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Subject: [dhcwg] Revisions to draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

In response to comments received during the IESG review of
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius, we have published
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-08.txt.  The most important change in this
revision is the specification of the IP-Framed-Pool RADIUS attribute in
replacement of the Class RADIUS attribute.  This change was made because the
Class attribute is used for other purposes in some RADIUS deployments and
servers, and because the Framed-Pool can be used to carry the name of a
policy that should be applied to the DHCP client authenticated by the RADIUS
protocol exchange.

Here is a summary of the other differences between the -07 and -08 revisions
of the specification:

A paragraph was added to the end of section 1, Introduction, to clarify the
applicability of the RADIUS Attributes Sub-option:

    The scope of applicability of this specification is such that robust
    interoperability is only guaranteed for RADIUS service
    implementations that exist within the same scope as the DHCP service
    implementation, i.e. within a single, localized administrative
    domain.  Global interoperability of this specification, across
    administrative domains, is not required.

A paragraph was added to section 2, Terminology, and the section "RADIUS
Server Behavior" was removed to clarify that the RADIUS Attributes
Sub-option does not affect any specification of the behavior of RADIUS
servers.:

    The use of the standard keywords MUST, SHOULD, MUST NOT and SHOULD
    NOT within this specification are with respect to RADIUS clients and
    servers that implement the optional features of this specification,
    do not create any normative requirements outside of that scope and do
    not modify the base RADIUS specifications, such as RFC2865 or
    RFC2866.

- Ralph





_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg