Subject: RADEXT WG last call on RADIUS Design Guidelines Document

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:53:05 -0800

This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the 
"RADIUS Design Guidelines" document, prior to sending 
it to the IESG for publication as a Proposed 
Standard.  The document is available for inspection here: 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-design-02.txt

RADEXT WG last call will complete on January 15, 2008.  Please respond
to this solicitation if you have read the document, regardless of whether you
have comments to provide or not.  In your email, please state whether you 
believe that the document is ready for publication.  

If you have comments to provide, please send them to the 
RADEXT WG mailing list ([email-masked]), 
using the format described in the RADEXT Issues tracker:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/

---

From: "Greg Weber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:41:17 -0500

I went through the current RADIUS Guidelines doc and do not have anytechnical
comments -one question and a couple minor editorial comments
below.  I think the doc can be passed to IESG.

Question:  In the description of polymorphic attributes (sec 3.2), what
does this mean:  "...the meaning of an attribute may depend on earlier
packets in a sequence."  ?   Is that referring to a request/challenge
sequence?

Minor Editorial changes:
Sec 1.1: "it's usage" -> "its usage"
Sec 2.1.3: "to introduced" -> "to be introduced"
Sec 2.1.3: "This issues" -> "These issues"
Sec 2.1.3: "attributes involve authentication" -> "attributes involving
authentication"
Sec 2.1.3: I'd remove the "(e.g., IPv6 address)" from the last paragraph.
 That's not
  a good example anymore as we've earlier called IPv6 a basic data type in
Sec 2.1.1.
Sec 2.2: Last paragraph has the wrong indentation
Sec 3.1.1: "vendors and SDOs they SHOULD" -> "vendors and SDOs SHOULD"
Sec 3.1.3: Expand PEC acronym at first use?
Sec A.1.2: "not included nested groups" -> "not include nested groups"

Greg

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:59:26 +0100

Greg Weber wrote:
> I went through the current RADIUS Guidelines doc and do not have any
> technical comments -one question and a couple minor editorial comments

  Great!
> packets in a sequence."  ?   Is that referring to a request/challenge

  Yes.  Or, a series of otherwise unrelated Accounting-Requests.

  It's targeted at un-named SDO's and/or vendors who have horrid
practices for dealing with attributes.  Not just polymorphic attributes
in one packet (if A then it's type B, otherwise it's type C), but across
packets for *unrelated* sessions.

> Sec 2.1.3: I'd remove the "(e.g., IPv6 address)" from the last
> paragraph.  That's not
>   a good example anymore as we've earlier called IPv6 a basic data type
> in Sec 2.1.1.

  Already done in Section 2.2.

> Sec A.1.2: "not included nested groups" -> "not include nested groups"

  All other changes are good, thanks.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>