[radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 15 August 2018 03:18 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 DE4A0128C65; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:18:17 -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>
Cc: draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy@ietf.org, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>, radext-chairs@ietf.org, stefan.winter@restena.lu, radext@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153430309790.27225.13672171828804687460.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:18:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/Fzwy0r9i-nlWN-it_iDFg8i_wjU>
Subject: [radext] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 15 Aug 2018 03:18:18 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-radext-coa-proxy-05: Discuss

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:


(This is a procedural DISCUSS. Hopefully it can be resolved easily, but I do
think it needs to be resolved prior to publication..)

This draft is standards track, yet it primarily serves to extend RFC 5176. That
RFC is informational. The shepherd writeup argues that this is okay because it
seems like 5176 should have been standards track. But the applicability
statement RFC 5176 explains why it was informational, and the reasons seem
convincing. Therefore I do not think it is appropriate to publish this draft as
Standards Track. I think it would be fine to progress it as Informational (or
even Experimental) if it included an applicability statement explaining why in
order to avoid the appearance of a standard masquerading as an Informational


(My review is not yet complete; I wanted to get the DISUSS point out with as
much discussion time as possible. I expect to follow up with an update sometime
before the telechat.)