rfc2486bis

[stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be]

Hi,

I have a few small questions/comments on
draft-arkko-roamops-rfc2486bis-00:

1) examples in section 2.8: why is @howard.edu an invalid NAI? And
why has eng%nancy@bigu.edu been removed from the list of valid NAIs
compared to RFC2486? I believe it is still valid, or should it be
put in the list of invalid NAIs?

2) Would it not be better to define the nai in 2.1 as follows:

nai = [realm "!"] ( <....> )

with <....> the current nai defintion. This to make the explanation
in section 2.7 more formal.

3) typo: a quotation mark too much at the end in the nai definition
in 2.1.

regards,

Stefaan

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>