[radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?

"radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Thu, 08 May 2014 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4A51A02B2 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 06:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2WcSYHwEEfLO for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 06:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271B91A0227 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 06:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]:53347 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WiOBF-0000eh-41; Thu, 08 May 2014 15:16:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, stefan.winter@restena.lu
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:16:08 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176
Message-ID: <065.18ebd81ae64d013f63a780221f34a543@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 176
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, stefan.winter@restena.lu, radext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: aland@freeradius.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/7xVij-Q8C_7wSiCo1mEXvESzZPY
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: radext@ietf.org
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:16:15 -0000

#176: draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still

 The document takes two conflicting positions on NAIs.

 In some places, it claims that the identifiers defined in this document
 are of generic use, particularly beyond network access scenarios (e.g. in
 Introduction, para 3 and 4; and section 1.3, third para).

 The document title itself (still) scopes the identifiers as "Network
 Access Identifier"; also the definition of the term in section 1.1
 explicitly speaks about "network access authentication".

 The document could be more consistent; if one is to follow the argument
 that such identifiers are for use beyond network authentication, then it
 is much more logical to reflect this in the name of the identifier, and in
 its definition.

 I don't recall this aspect already having been discussed on the mailing
 list; my apologies if my memory fails me. If it was indeed not discussed,
 I think this is worth bringing up. As an individual, my opinion is that a
 name notion of "Unique User Identifier" (or maybe s/User/Entity since it's
 not necessarily a human) would make more sense; "Unique" because the
 binding to FQDNs makes it somewhat (albeit not absolutely) unique.

 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  stefan.winter@restena.lu           |  nai@tools.ietf.org
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  nai                      |    Version:
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd     |   Keywords:
  Writeup                            |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>