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

Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> Fri, 01 August 2014 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9118B1A00EA for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxpYnNGOcVl6 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smptrelay.restena.lu (smtprelay.restena.lu []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AD61A010D for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7]) by smptrelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E0AB43995 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:30:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:30:29 +0200
From: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=8A39DC66; url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/jx2T3B_MUyVQu2EMbfXXFVyE5-I
Subject: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier?
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: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:30:34 -0000


due to my remote-only presence in the IETF90 meeting, one little point
to discuss fell in the cracks; I'd like to ask now on the list for
opinions because this is the only thing holding back the PROTO write-up
of the NAI draft.

In TRAC issue 176 ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176 ) I
raised the point that the document is currently inconsistent in its use
of the term NAI: some parts stress that the identifier is useful in a
generic context, beyond network access, while other parts define it to
be strictly in a network context.

The inconsistency really should be fixed; the question is in what way:
either the object itself could be renamed to reflect the wider focus; or
the name "Network Access Identifier" could stay, explaining that it's
historically grown and does not intend to limit its use to network
access despite the name.

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.
Please let the list know if you disagree with that course of action by
15 Aug 2014.


Stefan Winter

Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me