Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT

Benoit Claise <> Tue, 18 March 2014 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F128D1A03CE for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Er6Vt8Ku11dn for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB511A03A0 for <>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 03:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1247; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395138870; x=1396348470; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jZG8e4qkmr3egigBBiNaN4aONOYHnGaOtsImHQkEH4k=; b=R1D4Jk/ZCZf3HqRflkziHZEJ4kagWx/ja2VTxuvoDmHloMpVHdZuHxSC T2DnKTk+MUOIa9tSwE7zSiWQlnIxMS/xgvE/wG5ZkD73YwbgNHiogu27M c+NkQIVjOhHqAVOV9dZ/ZKZ67ZOF9xyAgk2cObDUP4dUvOFNFxWNDT2AE U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,677,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="9018610"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 10:34:29 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IAYTYb001663; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:34:29 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:34:29 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jouni Korhonen <>, "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:34:40 -0000

Dear all,

I've been asked in the past to AD sponsor
I always prefer to get proper WG review when possible...
Therefore I'm more inclined to have this document part of the new RADEXT 

Do you see any problems with this approach?

Regards, Benoit
> Folks,
> We are about to recharter soon, since the current charter work items are nearly done.
> We got the CoA Proxying as a potential charter item. So, the question is whether the
> WG is OK taking in the work in and at the same time adding required words  into the
> current charter.
> During the London WG meeting we had a presentation of draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext
> I-D. Surprisingly many people had read it and there was also interest around the ongoing
> work. So, the question is whether the WG is OK taking in the work in and at the same time
> adding required words  into the current charter. In general I would (personally) like
> to add text into the charter allowing RADEXT take in similar work to this more easily.
> Any other topics the WG feels need to be added into the charter? I'd assume at least
> Alan has one or two in his sleeves ;)
> - Jouni & Stefan.