RE: Sumary of feedback on draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-07.txt

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Bert Wijnen writes...

> So must the 3 issues be resolved before we can consider this documenty
> "a reasonable basis..."

My opinion is that these issues SHOULD be resolved.

Issues (1) and (2) could be resolved by adding text that specifically
restricts the scope of applicability of the specification such that
interoperability is only obtained (in any robust fashion) in the same
scope as DHCP itself, i.e. within a single, localized administrative
domain.  This change will not improve global interoperability of the
specification, but it will at least correctly set expectations for
limited, local interoperability.

Issue (3) can be resolved by clarifying (or emphasizing) that the text
"The RADIUS server that implements this specification MUST be configured
to return the User-Name and Class attributes to the NAS, and MAY return
other attributes." does not modify RFC2865, since the requirement only
applies to a "server that implements this specification". 

> > Issue      Title                Status
> > ------     -----                ------
> >
> > 1          Negotiation          Open
> > 2          Truncation           Open
> > 3          Normative Language   Open
> > 4          Conflicts            Resolved in -07
> > 5          Compatibility        Resolved in -07
> > 6          Authz Lifetime       Resolved in -07
> > 7          Correlation          Resolved in -07
> > 8          New Attribute        Resolved in -07
> > 9          Editorial Issues     Resolved in -07