[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D Action:draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-03.txt
Dan Romascanu writes...
> I would like to ask the WG chairs and the WG at large what are
> the plans with this document following the response received from
> IEEE 802.16.
We should first ask Glen his intent / preferences. Glen, what is your
preferred path to publish this draft?
As this draft has been deemed useful to IEEE 802.16 (at least to address
fielded deployments), the first question to ask is whether this work should
be taken on in the IETF, or whether it should be taken on in the IEEE (or as
a individual submission). We have created a framework in which RADIUS
attributes that are of interest to particular SDOs, but not of general
interest to the Internet community, could be documented as SDO Specific
Attributes, using the RADIUS Extended Attribute format and the RADIUS Design
Guidelines. This process may still require / desire expert review by the
RADEXT WG and/or the AAA Doctors.
OTOH, if the RADEXT WG is requested to invest substantial time in reviewing
this draft, it may make sense to publish this draft via the IETF process,
and thus as a RADEXT WG work item. I don't have a strong opinion either
way. If the WG chooses to take on this work, then it would need to be
appropriately prioritized w.r.t. the current deliverables, some of which
would be a prerequisite for either path (e.g. Design Guidelines and Extended
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.