Re: [radext] Status of extensions document?

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA]  I'd suggest that the document create the new extended space, 
> and:
> 
> 1. Enable attribute requests to be allocated from the new space upon
> request; 
> 2. Require that "large" (e.g. >10) attribute requests be allocated only
> from the new space (to prevent attribute hoarding); 
> 3. Prescribe that attributes automatically be allocated from the new
> space once the "standards" space is exhausted; 

  I've updated the document as above.  There is a new text in Section 6
(guidelines for spec authors), and Section 9 (IANA considerations) to
address this.

  The document also updates RFC6158 (it didn't before), and contains
text updating the guidelines in specific sections of RFC 6158.

> [BA] It's not just implementing, there is also deployment to consider.
>  Even if all RADIUS servers implemented
> extensions today, it could still take 3-4 years to get the new servers
> widely deployed.  

  Yes.

> [BA] The two are not mutually exclusive.  We can publish the extension
> document, then keep allocating from the standards space, and in a few
> years, panic. 
> 
> Based on recent experience with IPv6, this is a time-honored technique.  

  :)

  The draft submission tool appears to be down.  I've put a new version
of the document at:

http://git.freeradius.org/ietf/draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-04.txt

  I'll try submitting it again next week.

  Alan DeKok.