IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?

Rhys Smith <Smith@cardiff.ac.uk> Fri, 01 August 2014 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <Smith@cardiff.ac.uk>
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 8D49E1A0408 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 J2r5ei7YRdGW for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1lrp0020.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939611A04B1 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.30.155) by AM2PR02MB0276.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.30.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000
Received: from AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.30.155]) by AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.30.155]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000
From: Rhys Smith <Smith@cardiff.ac.uk>
To: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?
Thread-Index: AQHPrWLlYWdyZWdl/E2vBsf3EnMLBpu7cj+A
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000
Message-ID: <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk>
References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu>
In-Reply-To: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [31.50.5.171]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 029097202E
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(252514010)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(51704005)(106116001)(105586002)(87936001)(95666004)(54356999)(106356001)(83716003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83322001)(74482001)(74502001)(74662001)(85852003)(33656002)(36756003)(85306004)(82746002)(2656002)(83072002)(4396001)(64706001)(76176999)(66066001)(81342001)(2351001)(46102001)(86362001)(107886001)(81542001)(79102001)(50986999)(77982001)(77096002)(99936001)(21056001)(92726001)(101416001)(20776003)(76482001)(107046002)(110136001)(99396002)(80022001)(104396001)(80792004); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AM2PR02MB0276; H:AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6930714-188A-4EB2-94F5-A3B02B8C5786"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: cardiff.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/TV6z5p3coMniJluLQWwvJRZjHxw
Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?
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, 01 Aug 2014 08:56:49 -0000

On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> wrote:

> A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus
> seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to
> change.
> 
> I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go.

+1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it’s not meant to be used in the network access context only.

Rhys.
--
Dr Rhys Smith
Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist
Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network

email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net
GPG: 0x4638C985

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email