Subject: Re: [radext] #176 (nai): draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still appropriate?

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:35:36 -0000

#176: draft-ietf-radext-nai-05: is the term *Network Access* Identifier still
appropriate?

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 This issue was discussed on the list and it was unanismously agreed to
 keep the name - noting that the actual scope of NAIs is larger than back
 in the day when the term was coined.

 The document was revised meanwhile; only one trace of the old wording
 remains in 1.1 "Definition":

 "... is the user identity submitted by the client during network access
 authentication."

 Re-wording this to

 "... is the user identity submitted by the client during authentication."

 would remove the network context.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  nai                      |     Version:
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd     |  Resolution:
  Writeup                            |
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176#comment:2>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:56:40 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I'll change it in last call.  I don't think it's worth doing a new rev for
 this one change.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176#comment:3>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 07:58:32 +0200

Hi,

>  I'll change it in last call.  I don't think it's worth doing a new rev for

ACK, I'll keep the ticket open as a reminder.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et
de la Recherche
6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473

PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the
recipient's key is known to me

http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:39:48 -0000

Another occurence is in the Abstract:

 "... the user identity submitted by the client prior to accessing network
 resources."

 It should probably just be "resources" to remove the specific scope of
 network access. This can also be done in IETF LC.

Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176#comment:4>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:21:25 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 fixed.  I'll push out a new version as soon as I'm allowed

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  nai                      |     Version:
 Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd     |  Resolution:  fixed
  Writeup                            |
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176#comment:5>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>