IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Status of extensions document?

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 26 December 2011 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 6A74D21F8C32 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:21:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.716
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A9WtPsPTXzlB for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB9D21F8C2D for <radext@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU152-W42 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s29.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:21:37 -0800
Message-ID: <BLU152-W42C054B4D2AA6F1B3C148293AE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_50cd0f75-94ea-4f8b-ada6-a7fc947fce05_"
X-Originating-IP: [24.17.217.162]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 10:21:36 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4EF88423.7050305@deployingradius.com>
References: <4EF1DC0A.1070004@deployingradius.com>, <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA1FC99958@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <4EF5DC11.5050606@deployingradius.com>, <CAM+1sVBo6hajU=b4=ZePV1mqeVeGw8nbk5=QMEURMn-T3ObT1A@mail.gmail.com>, <4EF5F686.6080202@deployingradius.com>, <snt0-eas383D9D400579F7319BD94A493A90@phx.gbl>, <4EF88423.7050305@deployingradius.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Dec 2011 18:21:37.0197 (UTC) FILETIME=[3480DDD0:01CCC3FB]
Cc: radext@ietf.org, dnelson@elbrys.com, leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [radext] Status of extensions document?
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:21:41 -0000

Updating RFC 3575 and marking non-allocated entries as "reserved" would be well understood by IANA.  This would cause them to refuse to allocate any attributes from the "reserved" space, effectively closing the RADIUS "standards" space to further use, effective immediately. 

> > Deprecation of a registry is not defined in RFC 5226, so it's not clear how IANA can carry that out in practice.
> 
>   Then the entries should be marked "reserved".
> 
> > Since this draft doesn't update RFC 3575, it can be argued that no changes are made to legacy allocations.  However, the request for deprecation will create confusion. 
> 
>   The latest version of the draft (1 month ago) does update 3575.  It
> also updates the IANA section to address your other concerns.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email