Subject: [radext] #158: Section 1

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 00:03:44 -0000

#158: Section 1

 When the NAI was defined for network access, it had the side effect
    of defining an identifier which could be used elsewhere.  Some
    systems which required the use of an identifier did so by leveraging
    the NAI.  This process simplified the management of credentials, by
    re-using the same credential in multiple situations.  We suggest that
    this re-use is good practice.  The alternative is to have protocol-
    specific identifiers, which increases cost to both user and
    administrator.

 [BA] I do not agree that the definition of the NAI in RFC 2486
 automatically defined the syntax of user identifiers used outside of
 network access.  Nor do I agree that the use of the NAI should be widely
 encouraged in other protocols. If this were valid then those other
 protocols would have referenced RFC 2486 for their user identity syntax,
 and they did not do so.  For example, SIP and HTTP do not reference the
 NAI, and I do not believe it is the goal of this document to redefine SIP,
 HTTP or any other protocol that uses RADIUS.  In any case, that is outside
 the scope of the RADEXT WG.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  blocker                  |  Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  nai                      |    Version:  1.0
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/158>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:27:24 -0000

#158: Section 1

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => invalid

Comment:

 The document says "could" be used elsewhere.  It doesn't say that it
 mandated a definition for the identifiers used in other protocols.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-radext-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  blocker                  |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  nai                      |     Version:  1.0
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |  Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/158#comment:1>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>