Subject: Request for Review: RADSEC Specification

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:35:44 -0700

This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the purposes of considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item.  The document is available for inspection here:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winter-radsec-01.txt Please respond to the mailing list, indicating whether your are IN FAVOR or AGAINST adoption of the document as a RADEXT WG work item.  If you have comments on the document, please post these to the mailing list as well, in the format described in the RADEXT WG Issues page: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ This request for review will conclude on June 16, 2008.

---

From: Mike McCauley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:54:50 +1000

IN FAVOR

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:35, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the purposes
> of considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item.  The document is
> available for inspection
> here:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winter-radsec-01.txt Please
> respond to the mailing list, indicating whether your are IN FAVOR or
> AGAINST adoption of the document as a RADEXT WG work item.  If you have
> comments on the document, please post these to the mailing list as well, in
> the format described in the RADEXT WG Issues page:
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/ This request for review will conclude
> on June 16, 2008.

-- 
Mike McCauley                               [email-masked]
Open System Consultants Pty. Ltd            Unix, Perl, Motif, C++, WWW
9 Bulbul Place Currumbin Waters QLD 4223 Australia   http://www.open.com.au
Phone +61 7 5598-7474                       Fax   +61 7 5598-7070

Radiator: the most portable, flexible and configurable RADIUS server 
anywhere. SQL, proxy, DBM, files, LDAP, NIS+, password, NT, Emerald, 
Platypus, Freeside, TACACS+, PAM, external, Active Directory, EAP, TLS, 
TTLS, PEAP, TNC, WiMAX etc on Unix, Windows, MacOS, NetWare etc.

--
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: "Claudio Lapidus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:50:51 -0300

In favor.
--

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Bernard Aboba
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the purposes of considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item.
>
> The document is available for inspection here:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winter-radsec-01.txt
>
> Please respond to the mailing list, indicating whether your are IN FAVOR or AGAINST adoption of the document as a RADEXT WG work item.  If you have comments on the document, please post these to the mailing list as well, in the format described in the RADEXT WG Issues page:
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
>
> This request for review will conclude on June 16, 2008.

---

From: Stefan Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:31:15 +0200

Hello,

in favor of taking it as a start. Parts of it will need to be taken out
to form the basis of the "Reliable Transport Profile for RADIUS".

|     This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the
|     purposes of considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item.
|
|     The document is available for inspection here:
|     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winter-radsec-01.txt
|
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dekok-radius-status-server-02.txt>
|
|     Please respond to the mailing list, indicating whether your are IN
|     FAVOR or AGAINST adoption of the document as a RADEXT WG work item.
|     If you have comments on the document, please post these to the
|     mailing list as well, in the format described in the RADEXT WG
|     Issues page:
|     http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
|
|     This request for review will conclude on June 16, 2008.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:23:51 +0200

Bernard Aboba wrote:
>     This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the
>     purposes of considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item.

  I am in favor of adopting it as a WG work item.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:37:53 +0700

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

This is a request for review of the RADSEC specification for the purposes of
considering it for adoption as a RADEXT WG work item. 

I'm a little confused: since the recently approved charter lists RadSec as a
work item (even calling it out by name: '.specifications for
Secure transports, including TCP/TLS (RADSEC) and UDP/DTLS'), I'm not sure
what the point of this is or what the alternatives might be. 

 
Please respond to the mailing list, indicating whether your are IN FAVOR or

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:08:35 -0400

Glen Zorn writes...

> I'm a little confused: since the recently approved charter lists 
> RadSec as a work item (even calling it out by name: '.specifications
> for Secure transports, including TCP/TLS (RADSEC) and UDP/DTLS'), 
> I'm not sure what the point of this is or what the alternatives 
> might be.

The question is whether the subject individual draft is sufficiently
complete and well written to become a WG work item.  As you may recall, we
expect WG -00 drafts to be reasonably mature.

That alternative is that it could stay as an individual draft for more
polishing, or some alternative draft fulfilling the same WG charter
milestone could be presented for consideration.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:09:17 +0700

> expect WG -00 drafts to be reasonably mature.

Hmm, yes, a policy that has worked wonders in speeding up progress...

> milestone could be presented for consideration.

OK, so I thought that the lengthy discussion of whether or not to add RadSec
as a work item was about the protocol as described in the existing draft; we
even talked about some of the changes necessary to this document.  Am I to
understand that those debates were actually about adopting some theoretical
concept of RADIUSoTLS/TCP as a work item?

...

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:14:17 -0400

Glen Zorn writes...

> Hmm, yes, a policy that has worked wonders in speeding up progress...

RADEXT has been slow in making progress at times, but I think this
particular policy has no direct bearing on that.  It has neither speeded up
nor slowed down the rate of progress.  The root cause of the "rate of
progress" issue lies elsewhere.

> OK, so I thought that the lengthy discussion of whether or not to add
> RadSec as a work item was about the protocol as described in the existing
> draft; we even talked about some of the changes necessary to this 
> document.  Am I to understand that those debates were actually about 
> adopting some theoretical concept of RADIUSoTLS/TCP as a work item?

There is a procedural separation of concerns between adding a work item to a
WG charter and adopting a specific individual draft as the WG's chosen
vehicle to complete that work item.  As a WG chair yourself, I suspect that
you understand that distinction.  I'm not saying that I expect a competing
document to be offered up.  I'm simply answering your process question.
There are separate process steps;  we are following them.