[radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 01:59 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietf.org
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F1212B028; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <147139916045.19867.9306321909504917249.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:59:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/F9FH-tNCRSGG2ygMXW8SCvSS8V8>
Cc: stefan.winter@restena.lu, draft-ietf-radext-datatypes@ietf.org, radext-chairs@ietf.org, radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:59:20 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -2.1.2, first paragraph: "The specification may, of course, define a new data type and use it in the same document." Am I correct to assume that any such definition must (or maybe MUST) be registered? (Maybe that's already covered in 6929?) -4.1: I'm curious why new data types need a policy as strong as "standards action". Is there a concern that people will get this wrong without the full weight of the IETF consensus process? Is there a concern that the numbering space will run out? Would it be reasonable to have a "specification-required" policy, with some guidance to the designated expert(s)? (Or is it because such data types need to be referenceable from standards track documents, perhaps related to the guidance against vendor-specific types?)
- [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-iet… Ben Campbell
- Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [radext] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell