IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 D67951B2B17 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 6k5YICggDuCo for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C391B2B9C for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26B32074F; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mqN7XJsvYtn; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-177-27-27.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.177.27.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id C8A4981C04; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:07:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
References: <065.18ebd81ae64d013f63a780221f34a543@trac.tools.ietf.org> <080.187563b7a98218620fe0f8797b2665a0@trac.tools.ietf.org> <53A16064.2000801@gmail.com> <53BF8A08.3020807@restena.lu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:07:05 -0400
In-Reply-To: <53BF8A08.3020807@restena.lu> (Stefan Winter's message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:54:00 +0200")
Message-ID: <tslzjggue7a.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/IK_J9e9pMkE7kkSkERCj2Dma8oM
Cc: radext@ietf.org
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 15:08:01 -0000

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> writes:

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

I will not make the meeting.
I do not support the rename.
If we do want to rename, I recommend renaming it to "networked Access
Identifier," emphasizing that the identifier is networked, rather than
the access to a network.
I think that's contrived and I've seen significant damage result from
trying to rename thing.
Mumble mumble NAT66

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email