Subject: Re: Pending Errata for RADEXT

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:53:29 -0700

Speaking only for myself, the follow errata look reasonable and should be accepted:

420
867
1407

The following errata relate to problems with RFC 4282 which were uncovered in the IDNAbis effort.  While the nature of the problems is pointed out in the IDNAbis documents which have just completed IETF last call, the solutions will require substantial revisions to RFC 4282 which can only be accomplished in a -bis document.  Therefore these errata should probably either be classified as "pending update" or rejected:

1848, 1849, 1850

Pending errata for RADEXT

To: "radext mailing list" <[email-masked]>Subject: Pending errata for RADEXTFrom: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:31:56 +0100

RADEXT WG, 

There are a number of pending errata related to RADIUS that I have asked
recommendation in the past for the WG. Please process and advice how for
resolutions on these errata. Some of them are rather simple, some other
may require some more thought. 

The IDs (in the order of their occurrences in the tracker) are: 1607,
420, 1469, 753, 1848, 1849, 1850, 867, 1407. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:25:24 -0400

Bernard Aboba writes...

> Speaking only for myself, the follow errata look reasonable

I concur on 867 and 1407.  I have no opinion on 420.

--
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/>

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:11:01 +0700

Bernard Aboba ]mailto://[email-masked]] writes:

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:53 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Pending Errata for RADEXT

Speaking only for myself, the follow errata look reasonable and should be
accepted:

420

Agree.

867

Agree.

1407

Agree.

The following errata relate to problems with RFC 4282 which were uncovered
in the IDNAbis effort.  While the nature of the problems is pointed out in
the IDNAbis documents which have just completed IETF last call, the
solutions will require substantial revisions to RFC 4282 which can only be
accomplished in a -bis document.  Therefore these errata should probably
either be classified as "pending update" or rejected:

1848, 1849, 1850

I think that all three of these should be rejected.  Although there may be a
point to 1849, the notes point to an I-D, not an RFC, which itself does not
suggest site-specific handling of bidirectional character sets.  1848 may
make some sense (leaving aside the pompous declaration that "Much of RFC
4282 is simply wrong") but 1850 is pure nonsense, as I pointed out at some
length awhile back.

  _____  

*	To: "radext mailing list" <[email-masked]
<mailto:radiusext%40ops.ietf.org> >
*	Subject: Pending errata for RADEXT
*	From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]
<mailto:dromasca%40avaya.com> >
*	Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:31:56 +0100

  _____  

RADEXT WG, 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:49:28 -0400

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> The following errata relate to problems with RFC 4282 which were
> uncovered in the IDNAbis effort.  While the nature of the problems is
> pointed out in the IDNAbis documents which have just completed IETF last
> call, the solutions will require substantial revisions to RFC 4282 which
> can only be accomplished in a -bis document.  Therefore these errata
> should probably either be classified as "pending update" or rejected:
> 
> 1848, 1849, 1850

  I would suggest "pending update".

  Alan DeKok.