Re: [radext] Questions about draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-03

[Stefan Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

>> 5) For "Document quality", I would mention implementations which are
>> known to implement the spec. Are there any? If so, you may want to add
>> an RFC6982 "Implementation Status" section.
> 
>   Uh.... clickety click... I'll take a look at the implementation side of things. :)  But that requires IANA allocation of the packet code and attributes.
> 
>   On that note:  Response-Length is a  2-octet unsigned integer of maximum response length.
> 
>   Can that be changed to be of data type "integer"?   And maybe reference data types?
> 
>   I'll refresh the data types document today.

Unfortunately, RFC7120 does not foresee early allocation of "IESG
Consensus" type allocations.

I wonder what is the document author's preference: publish the document
without waiting for an implementation and the accompanying
Implementation Status section?

Or include such a section, stating that a FreeRADIUS implementation is WIP?

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
2, avenue de l'Université
L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66