Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?

Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> Fri, 11 July 2014 06:54 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
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 005881B2836 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] 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 hmek3aE3smnT for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smptrelay.restena.lu (smtprelay.restena.lu [158.64.1.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5841B279C for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7]) by smptrelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4843B43980 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:54:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53BF8A08.3020807@restena.lu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:54:00 +0200
From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <065.18ebd81ae64d013f63a780221f34a543@trac.tools.ietf.org> <080.187563b7a98218620fe0f8797b2665a0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <53A16064.2000801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53A16064.2000801@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=8A39DC66; url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gHVfgmFX4QkDVqpgB2gGfjkkoKbINu8sW"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ICGdPm_LmUL900WyiMX-XB1ijlo
Subject: Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?
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, 11 Jul 2014 06:54:04 -0000

Hi,

> I do not have technical reasoning for my position here but.. Personally
> I would not start renaming NAI. Quite a few documents refer to RFC4282
> and implicitly to this document and it would be confusing to change the
> name this late. IMHO what matters here is the functionality & technical
> corrections the I-D provides. If we need to finetune Section 1.1.
> terminology, let's do it.

That's fine - an update to section 1.1 could state that the name is
there for historic reasons, but that the scope is positively meant to be
wider than Network.

There was only this one opinion on the list - so maybe it's worth asking
the room how folks feel during the IETF90 meeting? I won't be there,
unfortunately ...

Greetings,

Stefan

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66