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

<> Sun, 03 August 2014 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74211A0538 for <>; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTjC6Iji2ZKf for <>; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA291A00FF for <>; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3695018C5E8; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1B0F727C053; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:26 +0200
To: "" <>, Alejandro Perez Mendez <>
Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?
Thread-Index: AQHPrWaLCP94w/Iv3E+ktLzWke9y0pu+dDcAgAC9qbw=
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:11:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu1407089170315emailandroidcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2014.8.3.173319
Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:11:36 -0000

In 3GPP specs, we use to define new identifiers (e.g. Private User ID in Its) that are  "in the format" of a NAI. So these identifiers have the same format of NAI but are not network access identifiers. I think that this kind of clarification is sufficient to avoid misinterpretation in the semantic.


Envoyé depuis mon Sony Xperia SP d'Orange

---- Alejandro Perez Mendez a écrit ----

El 01/08/14 a las #4, Rhys Smith escribió:

On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter <><> 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

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.


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

email:<> /<>
GPG: 0x4638C985

radext mailing list<>


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.