Subject: RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 07:21:47 -0400

Bernard Aboba writes...

> Are there any objections to granting the allocation as requested below?

None from me.

--
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: Avi Lior <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 11:27:02 -0400

Looks fine to me as well.

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation

The IANA has received a request for a new NAS-Port-Type allocation.  As
stated in RFC 3575, Section 2.1:

   Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a
   list of values to correspond with various meanings.  There can be 4
   billion (2^32) values for each attribute.  Additional values can be
   allocated by the Designated Expert.  The exception to this policy is
   the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of
   operation for RADIUS.  Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have
   been allocated.  Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF
   Consensus.  The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied
   by a published RFC.

Contact Name :
Tomohiro Ichida

Contact Email :
[email-masked]

Type of Assignment :
I request the allocation of new NAS-Port-TYPE.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types
Values for RADIUS Attribute 61, NAS-Port-Type [RFC2865]:

Registry :
The value is "Wireless - XGP"

Description :
There is a standardization organization as PHS-MOU.
We'd like to prescribe the new number in NAS-PORT-TYPE.
And We'd like to use its number by the next generation PHS system.
it is same as "Wireless - CDMA2000","Wireless - IEEE 802.16"

PHS-MOU is explained as follows this URL
 http://www.phsmou.org/

Additional Info :
 The "Next Generation PHS" specification is is being made.
 A document is not open to the public,sorry.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:16:33 +0700

> Are there any objections to granting the allocation as requested below?

My only objection is to being bothered with it ;-).  I forgot: what is the
rationale behind such careful rationing of the 4 billion (!) NAS-Port-Type
values again?

...

---

From: "Claudio Lapidus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:16:16 -0300

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Glen Zorn <[email-masked]> wrote:
> what is the

Hmm, perhaps is it that every new value will need to be properly
understood by all existing implementations, which in turn will need to
be retrofitted to handle it?

regards,
cl.

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:09:57 -0400

Glen Zorn writes...

> I forgot: what is the rationale behind such careful rationing
> of the 4 billion (!) NAS-Port-Type values again?

I don't think the value is in rationing.  As you point out, it's not an
overly scarce resource.  I think the value is in maintaining a decent
signal-to-noise ratio in the IANA registry.  Given that there are 4 billion
possible values, it's preferable to avoid duplicates or nearly-duplicates
with ambiguously subtle distinctions.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:03:40 +0700

David B. Nelson <mailto://[email-masked]> writes:

> possible values, 

Micro-managing the namespace is a waste of time.

> it's preferable to avoid duplicates or nearly-
> duplicates

The level of distinction that is considered to be subtle tends to vary both
with the state of the art & the expertise of the observer: the difference
between uranium-238 and u-235 certainly seems subtle to me (what's a couple
of neutrons between friends? ;-) but is certainly not subtle to a modern
physicist & even less so to a maker of atomic bombs.  My point is that,
because NAS-Port-Type values generally represent L2 protocols, it is
somewhat likely that IETF "experts" will lack the expertise to make these
kinds of decisions in the exotic cases anyway.  The current request is a
case in point: I will admit that I had no idea what PHS was (let alone
PHS-MoU) until I went off to the Web site to check.  I wonder how many other
people on this list did?  In fact, I'm still not sure what, exactly, makes
it unique enough to require a separate number but (given that there are
3,999,999,965 of them left) I really don't care.

...

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:23:33 -0400

Glen Zorn writes...

> ...the difference between uranium-238 and u-235 certainly seems
> subtle to me (what's a couple of neutrons between friends? ;-)
> but is certainly not subtle to a modern physicist...

Sure.  However, if you need U-238, and get mislabeled U-235 by mistake, you
may not be satisfied.

> I wonder how many other people on this list did?

I did.

> In fact, I'm still not sure what, exactly, makes it unique enough
> to require a separate number but (given that there are 3,999,999,965
> of them left) I really don't care.

Would you care if, say a million of so of them were all assigned for "IEEE
Wireless"?  I'd find that horribly confusing.  All I'm looking for is enough
review to make sure that the naming is sufficiently clear such that "caveat
emptor" can reasonably apply.  Truth/accuracy in labeling.  If folks want to
get assignments for their "secret sauce" specialized flavors of ports, I
agree, there is no scarcity issue.  I think there is an accuracy of
nomenclature issue.  I don't think it's fair to require IANA to make that
judgment.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:12:55 +0700

David B. Nelson writes:

> emptor" can reasonably apply.  

Since we're tripping the light fantastic here, the expert review process
falls apart with more than a few entries anyway (if there were only a
million port types it would take more than a month to _scan_ them @ 1/sec.,
8 hrs./day).  In fact, it may fall apart at 35, since a NAS-Port-Type was
assigned for PHS (AKA PIAFS) in RFC 2865...

...

---

From: "David B. Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:29:20 -0400

Glen Zorn writes...

> In fact, it may fall apart at 35, since a NAS-Port-Type was

And your point is that Next Generation PHS is not sufficiently
differentiated from PHS?  I think I might agree, on the general principle
that "next generation" is always relative, and what do you call the sequel?

So you've made a concrete and useful contribution to expert review.
Congratulations!

We should probably request that IANA list this entry as "PHS-MOU" and not
"Next Generation PHS".

As long as the nomenclature is unambiguous and there is some reference to a
specification, standards forum, corporation or individual that can be
contacted by anyone who really wants to know "What is this port type,
exactly?", I think it's fine.