RE: I-D Action:draft-zorn-radius-pkmv1-03.txt

[Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

> I suppose this draft could be published as documentation of existing
> practice / fielded deployment, as an Informational RFC using the fielded VSA
> assignments.

Indeed, according to the Design Guidelines document, that is the *preferred*
approach, since it maximizes interoperability with existing implementations.

Of course, this raises the question whether the existing attributes are allocated
in the IEEE 802 space (e.g. SDO-specific attributes), or in the Vendor-Space.

However, in terms of the review process described in the Design Guidelines
document, it does not matter.

> Using Extended Attributes was my first choice but it is unfortunately
> impossible to do this in any reasonable fashion using them; this was
> established as unchangeable WG Consensus some time ago, as announced by Alan
> Dekok 

Given that this protocol has supposedly already been implemented by 2 vendors,
why is the presence or absence of any feature within the Extended Attributes
document relevant?  Presumably a description of an existing implementation would
be self-contained, not requiring a normative reference to any work-in-progress,
assuming that the protocol is already implemented.

> (it _is_ interesting that RFCs can be updated & made obsolete &
> decisions of even the highest courts may be overturned, all based on new
> data, but WG Consensus cannot change -- who knew?).

What I don't understand is what "working group consensus" has to do with
publishing documentation of an existing implementation.   Presumably the only
criteria governing would be whether the document actually describes
what has been implemented.

> These spurious claims can't avoid the fact that you haven't succeeded
> in changing the WG consensus to support your position.  Don't blame me.

The "claims" in question here seem to have nothing whatever to do with the document
under discussion in this thread:  draft-zorn-radius-pkm1.   So before we get drawn
into a discussion of the validity of them, I'd first like to understand why they are even
relevant.

If the goal here is to publish documentation of an existing implementation of RADIUS
attributes for IEEE 802.16a, then a request should be sent to the AAA-Doctors list
for a review.  Such a document need not become a RADEXT WG work item to be
eligible for publication.  Certainly that has not been the case for other such
documents, most recently RFC 4679.