IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970FF1A072D for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wf-jsBCt0FQP for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853231A04AB for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2272; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395169240; x=1396378840; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jl/ZWR2LIHhExS3/r9k7gwUo1iH3FLDGZ9HzyOUsj48=; b=Ovjgb+ntE9v85aA/U/NPJXKgdzt66nOw9RDpN347lbP9HAaJyBgobv4C Q0LeltmVlfAtFOUXiIMuBgxF7HG+8bkRKahYDF5v/1gcc8/ERr4+Hsdok 4gnahfed+99JneFxLlI1v12n9vKihEjionrqYXQL+U155Z35XcAizkc44 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAKqXKFOQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABagwY7uz6Ga1GBLRZ0giUBAQEEAQEBNTYKDQQLDgMEAQEKFggHCQMCAQIBFR8JCAYBDAYCAQGHdQ3QKBMEjg5bBoQyAQOYRoZMi2SDLjw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,679,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="9765984"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2014 19:00:25 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.89] (ams-bclaise-8918.cisco.com [10.60.67.89]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2IJ0PII032159; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:00:25 GMT
Message-ID: <532897C9.4020604@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:00:25 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, radext@ietf.org
References: <52C486C6-B1FD-4310-A38E-2EBEA8CDFB6F@gmail.com> <53282135.5060309@cisco.com> <034201cf42d2$15b4a780$411df680$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <034201cf42d2$15b4a780$411df680$@augustcellars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ic2ZFRZ3kE1RZSlG7IEvAS1tozA
Subject: Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:01:03 -0000

Hi Jim,

Point taken. I'm hoping for clarification requests coming from the WG.
My issue with AD sponsor documents is to get good reviews. Believe it or 
no, it's not easy.
A chartered document requires some reviews.

Regards, Benoit
> How would you expect the WG to change a document that has the purpose of
> documenting one version of a RADIUS deployment.  While I think that asking
> the group to review the document for readability makes sense, having the
> document as a WG item does not.
>
> Jim
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:34 AM
>> To: Jouni Korhonen; radext@ietf.org
>> Cc: radext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [radext] Rechartering RADEXT
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I've been asked in the past to AD sponsor
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wierenga-ietf-eduroam/
>> I always prefer to get proper WG review when possible...
>> Therefore I'm more inclined to have this document part of the new RADEXT
>> charter.
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> radext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email