From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:53 AM
To: dromasca@avaya.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Pending Errata for RADEXT
Speaking only for myself, the follow errata
look reasonable and should be accepted:
420
Agree.
867
Agree.
1407
Agree.
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
I think that all three of
these should be rejected. Although there may be a point to 1849, the
notes point to an I-D, not an RFC, which itself does not suggest site-specific
handling of bidirectional character sets. 1848 may make some sense
(leaving aside the pompous declaration that “Much of RFC 4282 is simply
wrong”) but 1850 is pure nonsense, as I pointed out at some length awhile
back.
Pending errata for RADEXT
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