Subject: Re: L2TP to Proposed Standard

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 09:39:40 -0700

Thomas Narten <[email-masked]> writes:

>> The PPPEXT Working Group recommends that Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
>> "L2TP", draft-ietf-pppext-l2tp-10.txt, be advanced to Proposed
>> Standard.
>
>Quick question. Looking at the references in this document, there are
>several that are internet drafts:
>
>    [2] A. Valencia, M. Littlewood, T. Kolar, "Layer 2 Forwarding",
Internet
>        draft, April 1996
>
>    [3] K. Hamzeh, G. Pall, W. Verthein, J. Taarud, W. Little,
"Point-to-Point
>        Tunneling Protocol", Internet draft, June 1996
>
>    [7] D. Carrel, L. Grant, "The TACACS+ Protocol",
draft-grant-tacacs-00.txt,
>        October 1996
>
>   [13] G. Zorn, D. Leifer, A. Rubens, J. Shriver, "RADIUS Attributes for
>        Tunnel Protocol Support," draft-ietf-radius-tunnel-auth-04.txt,
>        November 1997
>
>An RFC can't reference a draft. You have three choices:
>
>1) delete the reference completely.
>
>2) change the reference to "work in progress". Note that this can only
>be done if the reference is unimportant with respect to implementing
>the draft.
>
>3) wait until the other document is an RFC. Even in the this case, you
>can't have a Standards Track document reference a non-Standards Track
>document in a normative sense.
>
>I don't think the first 3 references will be an issue, as they aren't
>normative (i.e., aren't needed to implementat l2tp). However, the last
>one might be. Specifically, the document says:
>
>>   The Private Group ID is a string corresponding to a table in the LNS
>>   that defines the particular characteristics of the selected group.  A
>>   LAC MAY determine the Private Group ID from a RADIUS response
>>   containing the PrivateGroupID attribute [13].
>
>Is this a normative reference? Also, what is the status of draft [13]?
>Will it become a Standards Track document and will it be published
>anytime soon?

I expect the document to advance to PS in the next month or so.

>Thomas