Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Documents
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 05 February 2009 02:01 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: emu@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED073A680D for <emu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:01:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EX1EZ1tIMXU1 for <emu@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.78]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75223A67F2 for <emu@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:01:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU137-W54 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:00:45 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU137-W547A5050188473B7B99FA693C00@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c56c2121-beee-42a8-a1c9-d3d6a88afaeb_"
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.80]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: emu@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:00:45 -0800
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2009 02:00:45.0171 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E91DC30:01C98735]
Subject: Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Documents
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/emu>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:01:05 -0000
Dan Harkins said: > draft-cam-winget-eap-fast-provisioning claims a reference to RFC 5226> but nowhere in that RFC can I find description of the following label> for an initial assignment of repository values:>> "allocated for management by Cisco">> yet the draft instructs IANA to set aside values 11-63 for just that> purpose. I think that's very inappropriate. Not only is it telling IANA> to cede some of its authority to a large multinational corporation but> it is decidedly *NOT* documenting existing use! If this whole exercise> is to document existing use then where are the specifications for these> PAC attribute types?Are you saying that the registry of "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types" also relates to RFC 4507, which is a standards track document? If so, then I may see your point. RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific registries. However, if the registry relates to a Standards Track protocol under IETF change control, then restricting vendor-specific extensions to only one vendor would be highly unusual.
- Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Docum… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Docum… Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Docum… Glen Zorn