[radext] #189 (dynamic-discovery): SRV protocol registry

"radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 19 August 2014 21:04 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E961A8900 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] 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 zFYLjlXkj3S5 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2256D1A6F27 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:53834 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1XJqa7-0004x7-Nz; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:39 -0700
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: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:04:39 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/189
Message-ID: <063.4785bcc57d94228bd8e3b91295e03e3c@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 189
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ObmyC7NG1XBW1W6g-BhVFUkKYrU
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] #189 (dynamic-discovery): SRV protocol registry
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:04:44 -0000

#189: SRV protocol registry

 Do we actually need this registry asked for in IANA considerations?

    This document requests the creation of a new IANA registry named
    "RADIUS/TLS SRV Protocol Registry" with the following initial
    entries:

    o  _tcp
    o  _udp

 One is already asking them as part of the service name or port number
 assignment request. Thus those are "registered" for SRV usage implicitly,
 right?

-- 
------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  jouni.nospam@gmail.com  |      Owner:  jouni.nospam@gmail.com
     Type:  task                    |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |  Milestone:
Component:  dynamic-discovery       |    Version:
 Severity:  -                       |   Keywords:
------------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/189>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>