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

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 25 March 2014 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 ABB4E1A0235 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 64bLBNA7dP5a for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F71E1A0232 for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6602240145; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:10 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kR9H8Y5eQfqc; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Thor.local (bas1-ottawa11-1176224686.dsl.bell.ca [70.27.195.174]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EE06224006A; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:10 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5331DE69.3080009@deployingradius.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:52:09 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com> <035801cf42d2$99464b80$cbd2e280$@augustcellars.com> <5328C172.5080305@deployingradius.com> <53303FB2.8090002@restena.lu> <53313E73.4030502@um.es> <53314783.6070802@restena.lu>
In-Reply-To: <53314783.6070802@restena.lu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/PiqXlrnkyt8kyfza4MTZkwNBLaQ
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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, 25 Mar 2014 19:52:45 -0000

Stefan Winter wrote:
> Note that none of this removes the need for the working group to settle
> on the questions:
> 
> - should we try to achieve an "Updates" relationship to RFC6929?

  I'm OK with or without the "Updates".  It would probably be best to
have it, unless the IETF process forbids Experimental drafts from
updating Standards track documents.

> - should there be an IANA registry for the flags of extended attributes?

  If we have an "Updates", there's no need.  Because people would be
expected to read the docs.

  If we don't have an "Updates", maybe.  RFC 6929 marks the reserved
fields as allocated via IETF consensus.  So anyone uses the excuse of
"no IANA registry" to "poach" on them is 100% at fault.

  For IETF consensus, I hope that the WG can track 2 documents, and
ensure that any new specification doesn't overlap with the fragmentation
doc.

  Alan DeKok.