Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 15:07 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 51FCD1A0141 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 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=-0.547, 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 txAvsStk8m3b for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32EC1A02EE for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=743; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395155261; x=1396364861; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UJW56b7SMj36lRujD6Rtc0QyFQdEzAMV7vkQaqd4/hI=; b=AnGERlqzllubl3pVybe4I5mDXcthr29kQaCG5faCu8knTdDrhR5+ZfMV 3tnhEFovKL2grUWQjOQGZRS8tOnxFKv1ZUqWgbEvvxAeSBYsUSK5eeqL2 doFsnJWOXeiFEFsAM/bcG8fgnKkKb3oCWszucZlfb5o/XUEZEiljB6Zhv w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkQFAOhfKFOQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagwbDNIEjFnSCJQEBAQQ4QAEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBh3XRYxeOYgeEOAEDmEaGTItkgy48
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,678,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="4974781"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 15:07:40 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.89] (ams-bclaise-8918.cisco.com [10.60.67.89]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IF7db1031720; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:07:39 GMT
Message-ID: <5328613B.4050201@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:07:39 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com> <53285EB4.7070206@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <53285EB4.7070206@deployingradius.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/FuI0-UO1DgwtbOz2s_JhUGh2fTA
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation@tools.ietf.org, "<lionel.morand@orange.com>" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:07:54 -0000

Alan,
> Benoit Claise wrote:
>> The question is: does it even make sense for an experimental RFC to
>> update another RFC?
>    Only if the other one is also experimental.
Good point.
I checked the last 100 published experimental RFCs, and when an "Update" 
was used, it was always updating an experimental RFC.

Regards, Benoit
>
>> Checking with one fellow IESG member, we don't think this the draft
>> Updates 6929. Nobody implementing 6929 has to look at this document. And
>> we think an Experimental document updating a standards track document is
>> bad form, even if not specifically forbidden. There's a normative
>> reference to 6929; Updates is not needed.
>    That sounds good to me.
>
>    Alan DeKok.
> .
>