RE: rfc2486bis

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> I see that in the new draft the example "fred@foo" becomes now a
> valid NAI because the definition of the realm changed compard to the
> original RFC, but in naibis it is still in the invalid list - but
> that has to be changed I guess?
> 
> Could there also be the following problem: "eng!nancy@bigu.edu" was
> valid in the original RFC2486. Now how do I know whether the
> username is "eng!nancy", which is a valid username, or is the
> username "nancy" and homerealm "eng"? I believe it is better to use
> another symbol than "!" such as ":"?
> 

I hope/assume that everyone knows/understands that we do not accept
such examples in RFCs. We want them to be of the form:

   someone@example.com
   foo@bar.example.com

or some such.
See ID-NITs at http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

Which says:

   o  Addresses used in examples should prefer use of fully qualified
      domain names to literal IP addresses, and prefer use of example
      fqdn's such as foo.example.com to real-world fqdn's
      See RFC 2606 for example domain names that can be used.

      There is also a range of IP addresses set aside for this purpose.
      These are 192.0.2.0/24 (see RFC 3330). Private addressess that
      would be used in the real world should be avoided in examples.

Bert 
> regards,
> 
> Stefaan
> 
> 
> 
> Jari Arkko wrote:
> > 
> > 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/>
> 

--
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/>