[radext] Re: [iesg] Re: Roman Danyliw's Block on charter-ietf-radext-07-03: (with BLOCK)

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 15, 2026, at 11:09 AM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [Roman] The WG has deep understanding into the ecosystem, but I don't understand the hole in the IETF process that this text is targeting, especially if this is intended to provide notice of code point registrations coming from outside of the IETF.

  As background, one of the reasons for a charter update is a number of RADIUS drafts which originate in other standards bodies.  Without a charter update, the WG is unable to move forward with these topics.

  The result is that there are standards in other SDOs which are blocked on RADEXT charter updates.

  So if any text in the charter is controversial or unexpected, it's likely best to just remove it.  I think that's the last "block", so hopefully the charter can be updated before Vienna.

>  An "IETF Review" allocation policy as noted for https://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types/radius-types.xhtml#radius-types-2 has one of the most rigorous safeguards as it requires an IETF stream document to be published to get a code point. This means that either RADEXT or another WG needs to pickup this work,

  i.e. another WG can publish updates to the RADIUS standards, without involving the active RADEXT working group.

  This concerns me, as it has resulted in less than optimal specifications.

> or an AD needs to sponsor the document.  Not only would this work get WG Review or explicit review by an AD, but it will also get IETF LC review.

  Unfortunately most people don't have time to stay up to date with all up and coming RFCs "to be".  This means that updates are missed.

  As an unrelated note (I've brought this up with ianabis), it would be good for the IANA registries to have an item listing "Active Working Group".  And then a suggestion that the WG has to be notified before allocations are performed in this registry.

  Alan DeKok.