[radext] #160: Section 2.1
"radext issue tracker" <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 09 June 2013 00:12 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B0321F94E1 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_NAIL=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DV2drn8NL8WK for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B8221F94BA for <radext@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56632 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1UlTEl-0005UT-IS; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 02:11:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: radext issue tracker <trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
X-Trac-Project: radext
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:11:59 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/160
Message-ID: <066.ec6beb4d1d3a00e2637b5a422c880fed@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 160
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-radext-nai@tools.ietf.org, bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, radext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: aland@freeradius.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20130609001200.D5B8221F94BA@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:12:00 -0700
Resent-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org
Cc: radext@ietf.org
Subject: [radext] #160: Section 2.1
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Reply-To: radext@ietf.org
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: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:12:01 -0000
#160: Section 2.1
Systems MAY accept user identifiers in forms other than the NAI.
This specification does not forbid that practice. It only codifies
the format and interpretation of the NAI. Where protocols carry
identifiers which are expected to be transported over an AAA
protocol, it is RECOMMENDED that the identifiers be in NAI format.
[BA] Implementations of PPP, EAP and other network access protocols do not
normalize NAIs, and cannot be expected to do so going forward. Therefore
the recommendation does not make sense - and also AAA proxies and servers
cannot expect NAIs to conform to the syntax in this document.
--
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-radext-
bernard_aboba@hotmail.com | nai@tools.ietf.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: milestone1
Component: nai | Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/160>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>
- [radext] #160: Section 2.1 radext issue tracker
- Re: [radext] #160: Section 2.1 radext issue tracker