[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rfc2486bis
Bernard Aboba wrote:
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?
Good catch. RFC 2486bis should not be introducing non-backward compatible
changes.
Yes. Thanks Stefaan for your comments!
@howard.edu was actually listed as an illegal example
in RFC 2486; the introduction of the privacy feature
makes this now legal.
eng%nancy@bigu.edu is still legal. I removed it
as a part of providing a new set of examples, but
since there are questions about it, maybe I should
put it back in just to avoid people wondering whether
it has been made illegal.
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.
Ok.
3) typo: a quotation mark too much at the end in the nai definition
in 2.1.
Yes. Kalle Tammela also noticed this issue.
I have corrected the above issues in
http://www.arkko.com/publications/nai/naibis.txt
--Jari
--
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/>