Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 18 April 2014 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09F21A0303 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.773
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 RIZ43VjQDsU3 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AB51A01AF for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2360; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397832803; x=1399042403; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IUrOZoGZrOLs3DcaNCFzqPAVuu3ts9l8vOklZM5uGcU=; b=KEpRmX/wOoEcoRCw+sGBm9M7CdnafMxbM40KSKa5rGKoFnUnDJPX+q8L wgSdS5aSKFB1bz04Z19XmtyHSh2UgCWLIRmmHnnkKkoBDbRbrbojfwjV6 4XDwQGVPORkPasyorJd7fjmDCYNU/NwbgDnzONDMGdLnuV/n6ZtKNrP9J g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqQEAEQ7UVOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABag1W9C4ZrUYEzdIIlAQEBBAEBATU2Cg0ECw4DBAEBChYIBwkDAgECARUfCQgGAQwGAgEBiD0NzH8TBI4OWwaEMgEDmG6GWIt3gzM7
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,884,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="19111333"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2014 14:53:21 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3IErLB5010437; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:53:21 GMT
Message-ID: <53513C61.1050101@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:53:21 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, radext@ietf.org, draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam@tools.ietf.org
References: <52C486C6-B1FD-4310-A38E-2EBEA8CDFB6F@gmail.com> <53282135.5060309@cisco.com> <034201cf42d2$15b4a780$411df680$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <034201cf42d2$15b4a780$411df680$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/BKUGO222FWJJX0xnrnOeW8MUwRo
Subject: Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:53:30 -0000

Jim,

I've been thinking about this draft.
Also, the ISE issue came up in a couple of recent IESG discussions.
Since there is not much freedom to change the technical content in this 
document, I now agree with you that ISE is a better avenue for this 
document.

Only fools never change their minds !

Regards, Benoit
> How would you expect the WG to change a document that has the purpose of
> documenting one version of a RADIUS deployment.  While I think that asking
> the group to review the document for readability makes sense, having the
> document as a WG item does not.
>
> Jim
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:34 AM
>> To: Jouni Korhonen; radext@ietf.org
>> Cc: radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I've been asked in the past to AD sponsor
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam/
>> I always prefer to get proper WG review when possible...
>> Therefore I'm more inclined to have this document part of the new RADEXT
>> charter.
>>
>> Do you see any problems with this approach?
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> We are about to recharter soon, since the current charter work items are
>> nearly done.
>>> We got the CoA Proxying as a potential charter item. So, the question
>>> is whether the WG is OK taking in the work in and at the same time
>>> adding required words  into the current charter.
>>>
>>> During the London WG meeting we had a presentation of
>>> draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext
>>> I-D. Surprisingly many people had read it and there was also interest
>>> around the ongoing work. So, the question is whether the WG is OK
>>> taking in the work in and at the same time adding required words  into
>>> the current charter. In general I would (personally) like to add text
> into the
>> charter allowing RADEXT take in similar work to this more easily.
>>> Any other topics the WG feels need to be added into the charter? I'd
>>> assume at least Alan has one or two in his sleeves ;)
>>>
>>> - Jouni & Stefan.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> radext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> .
>