Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org> Mon, 23 January 2017 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@freeradius.org>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD591297A8; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fC1YmuSHzaSg; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:51:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19382129496; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5102C0C; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail-server.vmhost2.networkradius.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYsLxEplrCgm; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.20.15] (CPEf4cc552207f0-CM00fc8dce0fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.230.129.191]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B2972C09; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:51:32 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78FE74A2-B59C-4F33-A4E8-1100C533A846"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>
In-Reply-To: <B99BD7F6-3468-4B7E-988A-5AAC7EDD8F54@amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:51:29 -0500
Message-Id: <46889561-7CC5-42E3-8021-8568590C4D6D@freeradius.org>
References: <20170109233022.14EE5B81304@rfc-editor.org> <CAHbuEH7A2+WyuexCVtFsk8bFGMG5nqOEDwbZY12oVgmwZtaJ5w@mail.gmail.com> <FF91E7C3-72C4-4F77-A957-ED8219B9C523@freeradius.org> <CAHbuEH7-E9VUH+ZxJdqQpr=hjhKFf0obEPLKZLwJHUZBmqF21w@mail.gmail.com> <F1A445D1-C233-41AF-9E1D-8DE50E8DF092@gmail.com> <CAHbuEH6DjWip-Sr=0hRnKz4M5HwrW0H1pY5vAZE_sQHMDWgj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <438C29BB-EB6E-4D10-A538-B0C0F9DACC68@amsl.com> <6A026C96-7C9B-4217-BEE1-E78FCB13487E@amsl.com> <967AA9E0-EC69-475E-8F61-CFF4837A3CD6@amsl.com> <3058D945-CC06-43FD-96FC-80542EA31C96@gmail.com> <70E0728C-DE5F-4ED2-BAD5-3FFB50D79ACA@amsl.com> <B99BD7F6-3468-4B7E-988A-5AAC7EDD8F54@amsl.com>
To: Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/-wLuemHIISWXxXXD1sMAM5_nFOk>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:27:48 -0800
Cc: Kathleen.Moriarty@dell.com, radext-ads@ietf.org, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, Winter Stefan <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] *[AD] Re: AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8044 <draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:51:39 -0000

> 
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <lbartholomew@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alan and *Kathleen,
> 
> We are preparing this document for publication, and we found that our question regarding the listing for RFC 4072 was not addressed.
> 
> RFC 4072 is listed under Normative References, but it is not cited anywhere in the text.  Please let us know whether it should be cited somewhere or removed from the references list.  Note for *Kathleen:  If the choice is to remove the reference, we will need your approval, because it is listed as Normative.

  It's listed as Normative because of the "Updates" line which says that this document updates RFC 4072.

  The only other reference to RFC 4072 was to via an attribute in the table which was removed.

  I think that leaving RFC 4072 as normative is the correct decision.