Re: [Emu] IANA allocation issue in EAP-FAST Documents

  Hi Bernard,

  "odd" isn't the word I'd use to describe it. Audacious and hubristic
are a bit more like it.

  These aren't "private use" or vendor-specific attributes. Let's be
very specific about that.

  I don't understand your mention of modifying RFC 4507. Is this yet
another problem with these drafts?

  Dan.

On Wed, February 4, 2009 1:19 pm, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> 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?
>
> It would appear that the registry of "EAP-FAST PAC Attribute Types"
> relates
> to a Standard Track document, RFC 4507, although the document itself
> doesn't indicate that it updates RFC 4507.
>
> RFC 5226 does permit vendor-specific registries, although it is somewhat
> odd to
> enable vendor extensions for only one vendor, particularly if this does
> relate to
> an IETF standards track document (which would imply IETF change control,
> no?)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emu mailing list
> Emu@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
>