Re: [radext] Control of RFC 3580. Transfer to RADIUS WG possible?

This document was published as Informational RFC through ISE process, so without WG consensus, even if key IETF participants were involved in this work.

Obviously, it does not prevent RADEXT to work on a new version of this document. However, before rushing for publishing a bis-version of this document, it would be good to know what would be the purpose of this new document.
The initial aim was to have non-normative text describing how to use RADIUS with 802.1X, and this material was put in an information RFC as well as in a non-normative appendix in IEEE specification. 

I know that some cleanup/updates/clarifications are required for this document. But to be really useful,  it could be interesting to know whether IEEE would be happy to endorse/reference the new version of the RFC, especially if some proposed changes have impacts on existing RADIUS implementation. Just to ensure that the proposed modifications/clarifications put in a bis-version will be followed by IEEE community.

And also, what should be the status of this document: Standard track/Informational?

Now, if the work is agreed, the proposed changes straightforward and there is no contentious discussions, I don't see why a 3-year period would be required to publish a new version. It will depend on the amount and type of change.

Regards,

Lionel

-----Message d'origine-----
De : radext [mailto:radext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alan DeKok
Envoyé : mardi 6 octobre 2015 21:06
À : Kathleen Moriarty
Cc : Nick Lowe; radext@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [radext] Control of RFC 3580. Transfer to RADIUS WG possible?

On Oct 6, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  If the document is simple and has no objections... it might take 3 years to get published as an RFC.
> 
> Is this a result of the workload of Radext, editors, or process 
> problems?  If it's process problems, let's fix that as I don' want to 
> see drafts taking 3 years to publish. If it is workload and priorities 
> for the WG, that is another matter (we can look at that as well).

  It's been the process for as long as I've been involved in RADEXT.  Call it 10+ years?

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
radext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.