IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 14:53 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 72D6C1A037C for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
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 5C3eBoXhs4gu for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FAA1A036E for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2209; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395154404; x=1396364004; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=OhKQb71Qbin1Sr8CWH5LUdNyXrpXWdtVrOKdMujE+R0=; b=LgFIdVpjra13rcVDBg0aFqUVsUY6lZx8pubJPdOYBMlesrXKqGcGaBsv WtJtnjHCFJgbl5ZwzjsG2xLR1/NyaadNJgXfkcn0Sj8LjRhUad9Mx2a0H ffNoCKJHcq4Rtw+9IodhpEfcn9dzAo1Baz8IgQAZQT2E9CzlwOu+OoXdE g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEGAK1cKFOQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABagwaJdbk/gSIWdIMkAR8BHBYYAwIBAgFYAQcBAYd10WUXjmIdhCIEmEaGTItkgy48
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,678,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217";a="9725484"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 14:53:23 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.89] (ams-bclaise-8918.cisco.com [10.60.67.89]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IErNBX020104; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:53:23 GMT
Message-ID: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:53:22 +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: draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070600010808070203040307"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/JYtEvE0X6KuU-5U1sHMN8zDw-cA
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "<lionel.morand@orange.com>" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Subject: [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 14:53:33 -0000

Dear all,

Following Lionel's question during the RADEXT meeting regardingthe 
"update RFC 6929" in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation-04, I was 
asked to look into this question.

RFC 3967 and RFC 4897 are about the reverse, i.e. normative downref, so 
no problem here.
The question is:does it even make sense for an experimental RFC to 
update another RFC?

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.

Regards, Benoit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email