Subject: RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt

From: Abhishek Tiwari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:44:50 +0800

Hi All,

I am having concern with IETF's bureaucratic procedures to get such a simple draft closed. Is there a way we can close this faster? Let me know if there is any other way to get traction here.

Thanks,
Abhishek

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt

This is call for the RADEXT WG to review the I-D
draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt, which assigns new values of the
RADIUS Tunnel-Type Attribute.

After a discussion among the draft author, our esteemed Area Director and
the WG Co-Chairs, it was decided that review of this document in RADEXT was
appropriate and that, if the WG concurred, we would make it a WG item and
forward it to the IESG to determine IETF Consensus.

This document is now in RADEXT WG Pre-WG Review.

Please review this very short (5 pages) draft located at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt

Please send a message to the RADEXT list indicating:

(1) Should this document be taken on as RADEXT WG work item?

(2) Are the technical or editorial issues with this document?

The comment period will last until October 5, 2008.

Regards,

Dave

--
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/>

--
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: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:53:39 +0700

> I am having concern with IETF's bureaucratic procedures to get such a
> simple draft closed. Is there a way we can close this faster? Let me
> know if there is any other way to get traction here.

Relax, pal: we haven't even _gotten_ to the "bureaucratic procedures" yet
;-).

...

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:41:26 -0700

Glen Zorn said:

"Relax, pal: we haven't even _gotten_ to the "bureaucratic procedures" yet
;-)."

Indeed.  To allocate a two Tunnel-Type values, is it really reasonable to
require
a "pre-WG review" process, WG last call, IESG review and IETF last call?
Surely this was not the intent of 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.