Re: [radext] Extended IDs

Hi, Folks:

Apologies for not being able to reply earlier.  We are certainly open to revising the
draft based on suggestions from Alan and other members, and will start working on it
should draft-chen-radext-identifier-attr-02 be adopted by the WG.

Thanks.  -- Enke

On 11/28/17 8:16 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> wrote:
>> In your reply to this call for adoption, please indicate which of the
>> two drafts you think should be adopted. You can of course also indicate
>> that none of the two are fit for purpose. The only thing you really
>> shouldn't do is to vote for both; that wouldn't help the discussion move on.
> 
>   I prefer draft-dekok-radext-request-authenticator-02
> 
>   If the WG decides to use draft-chen-radext-identifier-attr-02, then I believe it needs significant changes before it's ready for publication:
> 
> - use of "ad hoc" complex data type violates RFC 6929 Section 6.3
> 
> - the negotiation can be simplified with no loss of functionality.  See my draft for examples.
> 
> - there is minimal discussion as to how this affects proxies, TCP, UDP, etc. 
> 
> - there is minimal discussion of inter-operability considerations with existing RADIUS solutions
> 
> - there are few guidelines for implementors
> 
>   While some WG members may prefer the technical solution in draft-chen-radext-identifier-attr-02, I think everyone can agree that the other proposal has these issues exhaustively enumerated and discussed.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> 