Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Wed, 18 June 2014 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 F40E11A0099 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CgNqtmU_sTIs for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5C8F1A0011 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id el20so317615lab.35 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wgp71iQVbgfozXNdhR+tFc4o8PzDV/l4bHI/dGpdD3w=; b=0M6kpeSpV1oE1ZEn5MGEb/vXaoZ7Hura+jdql6q5d2NnilD8aUQjJcb7fORJcw5NrJ k2vBHZDLYa40g0aMQVJmdxY2CSgxck84i7GtHQo/sxsJoubzvRqmydssBsP5QeO60XRn 1FVduM77fblRQS3nMbpq83yM8eHhSJI0hDV48LOegM92tw9Nv33L+KUUHJ0s8zBhHSOQ zRb6Xq27tL57vdn3xt6cwwI3Nutl/lqQPqFIFqrHnNM/QxDYShtCSGbKK3OE9qULQS0N 1kXRLD+ll9SpAcEUp5UFfTVtZnCBRPzVfJL7XQuQf5zeobQn1FptdefysDyA1haZmPEi dNkA==
X-Received: by 10.112.126.38 with SMTP id mv6mr620215lbb.54.1403084901932; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.250.160] ([194.100.71.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mv10sm1204332lbb.0.2014.06.18.02.48.20 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53A16064.2000801@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:48:20 +0300
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: radext@ietf.org, aland@deployingradius.com
References: <065.18ebd81ae64d013f63a780221f34a543@trac.tools.ietf.org> <080.187563b7a98218620fe0f8797b2665a0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <080.187563b7a98218620fe0f8797b2665a0@trac.tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/r_3thNbpAivyki7f78jZOxT1_gQ
Subject: Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:48:26 -0000

I do not have technical reasoning for my position here but.. Personally 
I would not start renaming NAI. Quite a few documents refer to RFC4282 
and implicitly to this document and it would be confusing to change the 
name this late. IMHO what matters here is the functionality & technical 
corrections the I-D provides. If we need to finetune Section 1.1. 
terminology, let's do it.

- Jouni

6/18/2014 12:39 AM, radext issue tracker kirjoitti:
> #176: draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still
> appropriate?
>
>
> Comment (by aland@deployingradius.com):
>
>   I think this requires larger discussion in the WG
>