Subject: PROTO WRITEUP: RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT)

Title:  RADIUS Authorization for NAS Management
I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-05.txt
 
Status: Proposed Standard
 
Response to template:
 
1) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the ID and do
   they believe this ID is sufficiently baked to forward to the IESG
   for publication?
 
Yes.
 
2) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and
   key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
   breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
 
Yes. The ID has had 2 working group last calls.
 
3) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
   particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
   complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?
 
No concerns.  The document has been reviewed both by the ISMS WG
as well as by RADEXT WG. 
 
4) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
   you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
   perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
   or whether there really is a need for it, etc., but at the same
   time these issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has
   indicated it wishes to advance the document anyway.
 
No.
 
5) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
   represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
   being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with
   it?
 
There is solid consensus behind this document.  7 people other 
than the author have commented on various aspects of the 
document. The issues raised, available for inspection at
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/, were resolved in the -04
version of the document.
 
6) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
   discontent?  If so, please summarize what are they upset about.
 
No.
 
7) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to _all_ of the
   ID nits?  (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html).
 
Yes. An output of the run on this revision of the ID by the online nits
checker:
 
idnits 2.08.10 
 
tmp/draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-05.txt:
 
  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 3978 and 3979, updated by RFC 4748:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No issues found here.
  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No issues found here.
  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No issues found here.
  Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No issues found here.
  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative 
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
 
     No issues found here.
     No nits found.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
8) Does the document a) split references into normative/informative,
   and b) are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
   also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
   (Note: the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
   references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
   also ready for publication as RFCs.)
 
The document splits references into normative and informative ones.
There are no normative references to IDs.
 
9) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
   announcement includes a writeup section with the following
   sections:
 
   - Technical Summary
 
   This document specifies RADIUS attributes for authorization and
   service provisioning of Network Access Server (NAS) management.
   Both local and remote management are supported, with granular access 
   rights and management privileges.  Specific provisions are made for 
   remote management via framed management protocols, and for 
   specification of a protected transport protocol.  
 
    - Working Group Summary
 
    There have been 2 WGLCs on the document.  Much of the discussion on
    the document has centered around the model for provisioning of 
    protected transports, as well as the different remote administration
    mechanisms (secure and insecure) to be supported.  There has also
    been discussion of the relationship between Framed Management 
    (introduced in this draft) and the pseudo-TTY management model 
    supported in RFC 2865.

--
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/>