Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365
Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Thu, 17 October 2013 04:58 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F29821F9D7B for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wo0xR9zEXput for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E9F21F9D7E for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D63204F8; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:56:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEJwy9mBLfjK; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.31.44.221] (unknown [137.205.238.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hartmans@mail.suchdamage.org) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 00:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <081.5f9e1b3cafd15a1e03ba10b80f9a75fa@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <066.d7856f6a412e6225fc72caaacf5fd2b6@trac.tools.ietf.org> <081.5f9e1b3cafd15a1e03ba10b80f9a75fa@trac.tools.ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----54Z4C08WRZO0QVN9HAECFCT3I53F2K"
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:58:22 +0100
To: radext@ietf.org, radext issue tracker <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>, aland@deployingradius.com, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
Message-ID: <baa0b0fa-cc44-4f7b-bc09-4cd8eb42aa16@email.android.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 04:58:39 -0000
It does not make sense to close an issue if you are still waiting for input radext issue tracker <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote: >#146: Terminology and RFC 6365 > >Changes (by aland@deployingradius.com) > > * status: new => closed > * resolution: => fixed > > >Comment: > > OK. I'll add a reference && terminology updates > >-- >-------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > Reporter: | Owner: > bernard_aboba@hotmail.com | aland@deployingradius.com > Type: defect | Status: closed > Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1 >Component: nai | Version: 1.0 > Severity: Candidate WG Document | Resolution: fixed > Keywords: | >-------------------------------------+------------------------------------- > >Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/146#comment:2> >radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/> > >_______________________________________________ >radext mailing list >radext@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
- [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 radext issue tracker
- Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 radext issue tracker
- Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 radext issue tracker
- Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 Sam Hartman
- Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 Alan DeKok
- Re: [radext] #146: Terminology and RFC 6365 Sam Hartman