Re: Pending Errata for RADEXT

[Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>]

Speaking only for myself, the follow errata look reasonable and should be accepted:

420
867
1407

The following errata relate to problems with RFC 4282 which were uncovered in the IDNAbis effort.  While the nature of the problems is pointed out in the IDNAbis documents which have just completed IETF last call, the solutions will require substantial revisions to RFC 4282 which can only be accomplished in a -bis document.  Therefore these errata should probably either be classified as "pending update" or rejected:

1848, 1849, 1850

Pending errata for RADEXT

---

• To: "radext mailing list" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
• Subject: Pending errata for RADEXT
• From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
• Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:31:56 +0100

---

RADEXT WG, 

There are a number of pending errata related to RADIUS that I have asked
recommendation in the past for the WG. Please process and advice how for
resolutions on these errata. Some of them are rather simple, some other
may require some more thought. 

The IDs (in the order of their occurrences in the tracker) are: 1607,
420, 1469, 753, 1848, 1849, 1850, 867, 1407. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan