Re: [radext] #159: Section 1.3
"radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 09 June 2013 13:28 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 1930121F8667 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.153, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, 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 beAfCuowtfyy for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E4821F9104 for <radext@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51271 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1Ulfft-00067m-Jq; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 15:28:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: radext issue tracker <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, aland@deployingradius.com
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:28:49 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/159#comment:1
Message-ID: <081.ce97c79930cf4a97abc6c558fd8ea7f6@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <066.2a5dd272e19907b062418a7807697c44@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 159
In-Reply-To: <066.2a5dd272e19907b062418a7807697c44@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, aland@deployingradius.com, radext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: aland@freeradius.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20130609132851.B9E4821F9104@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 06:28:51 -0700
Resent-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [radext] #159: Section 1.3
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Reply-To: radext@ietf.org
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: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:28:56 -0000
#159: Section 1.3 Changes (by aland@deployingradius.com): * status: new => closed * resolution: => invalid Comment: The document makes it clear that a RADIUS User-Name will not always contain an NAI. It recognizes that other protocols do not currently use the NAI for user identifiers. It suggests that using a common identifier is preferable to have identifiers which are protocol-specific. -- -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-radext- bernard_aboba@hotmail.com | nai@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: blocker | Milestone: milestone1 Component: nai | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Resolution: invalid Keywords: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/159#comment:1> radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>
- [radext] #159: Section 1.3 radext issue tracker
- Re: [radext] #159: Section 1.3 radext issue tracker