Subject: [radext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:56:33 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the RADIUS EXTensions of the IETF.

        Title           : Data Types in the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service Protocol (RADIUS)
        Author          : Alan DeKok
	Filename        : draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2016-06-22

Abstract:
   RADIUS specifications have used data types for two decades without
   defining them as managed entities.  During this time, RADIUS
   implementations have named the data types, and have used them in
   attribute definitions.  This document updates the specifications to
   better follow established practice.  We do this by naming the data
   types defined in RFC 6158, which have been used since at least RFC
   2865.  We provide an IANA registry for the data types, and update the
   RADIUS Attribute Type registry to include a "Data Type" field for
   each attribute.  Finally, we recommend that authors of RADIUS
   specifications use these types in preference to existing practice.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 09:57:50 -0400

The only change in this draft is text explaining why the format of the "ipv4prefix" data type has changed from RFC 6572, and why that change is fine.

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:56 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:00:52 +0200

Hello,

thanks for the update.

As I'm finalising the write-up: idnits makes a remark about a
non-existent pre-5378 disclaimer.

If you copy&pasted text from those of the specifications that your draft
updates and which are pre-5378 themselves, that action may lead to the
necessity for the disclaimer (if you didn't contact the original authors
for a clearance).

Can you confirm that no such text import happened, and that a pre-5378
disclaimer is not necessary?

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER
Ingenieur de Recherche
Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche
2, avenue de l'Université
L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette

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: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 07:10:04 -0400

> disclaimer is not necessary?

  A quick review shows that no such import happened.  The older text describing data types was either minimal, or specific to an attribute.

  The text in this draft has a much larger discussion around what the data type is, what limitations there are (if any), and how it should be used in new specifications.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:50:58 +0200

Hi,

thanks for this confirmation. That was the last open issue on my checklist.

I've uploaded the shepherd write-up and have now requested publication
of this document as RFC.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

Tel: +352 424409 1
Fax: +352 422473