Re: Private NAIs (Was: Re: rfc2486bis)

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> So I think its pretty clear that the NAI realms should be registered
> via usual domain name procedures. However, the text in RFC 2486 leaves
> _some_ room for interpretation, as it first says "required" and then
> "should" and finally for no ownership it says "discouraged". Perhaps
> this text should be clarified in the bis version, e.g., made to a SHOULD
> or even a MUST. Or are you Blair arguing that it should be relaxed?

Overall, the intent of RFC 2486bis is clarification and
internationalization.  Anything beyond this is out of scope.

Relaxing the requirement on FQDN allocation would open up a can of worms
that is best left closed.  For example, Diameter can use DNS for service
location; if the NAI realms are "private" then this will break.  Also, allocation of
"private" realms would presumably require a description of which realms
are "private" in order to reserve them.  The IETF does not in general
have the authority to allocate FQDNs -- that's the purview of ICANN.


--
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/>