IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Tue, 18 March 2014 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.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 19B791A017E for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 KbgI1UG8aAOc for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from power.freeradius.org (power.freeradius.org [88.190.25.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE5BC1A040B for <radext@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 07:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9CC2240371; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:56:55 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at power.freeradius.org
Received: from power.freeradius.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (power.freeradius.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8eDDxkL2+Np5; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:56:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Thor.local (unknown [70.50.218.22]) by power.freeradius.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D45FF2240137; Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:56:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <53285EB4.7070206@deployingradius.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:56:52 -0400
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53285DE2.9040802@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/vzYMUpgYcOWR275JuUFMLZJunv0
Cc: "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation@tools.ietf.org, "<lionel.morand@orange.com>" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
Subject: Re: [radext] Update RFC 6929 in draft-ietf-radext-radius-fragmentation
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: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:57:41 -0000

Benoit Claise wrote:
> The question is: does it even make sense for an experimental RFC to
> update another RFC?

  Only if the other one is also experimental.

> Checking with one fellow IESG member, we don't think this the draft
> Updates 6929. Nobody implementing 6929 has to look at this document. And
> we think an Experimental document updating a standards track document is
> bad form, even if not specifically forbidden. There's a normative
> reference to 6929; Updates is not needed.

  That sounds good to me.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email