RFC2486bis issue 10 (Was: Re: Status of open issues?)

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

It seems that my draft has one issue, #10, marked
as open. It was partially addressed already, but
there's apparently one small thing that needs to
be changed. I have revised the draft and if the WG
agrees with the resolution I will submit it.

Here's what the issue said:

> See the snips from formal syntax (In fact they are there in the original RFC as well).
>
> char        =/ "\" x
> x           =  %x00-7F ; all 128 ASCII characters, no exception
>
> I suppose that you would want to allow the user name like
> "myusername\x0\x1". I'm curious to know  in which cases do we make use
> of these combo characters.

I do not know, but I do not want to limit the syntax from
the original RFC. Lets leave them as they are.

> Doesn't it look consistent if you make the syntax of x to take all 256
> includes ASCII and the remaining UTF-8 characters ( i.e., x = %x00-FF)

I think so. I have produced a straman version of
draft-ietf-radext-rfc2486bis-01, see:

  http://www.arkko.com/publications/nai/naibisdiff.html

> [Ignacio Goyret]
>
> A detail:
>
> c =/ %x60-7a ; 'a'-'z' allowed
> ^^^^ ^^^
>
> 0x60 == '`' (on a US keyboard, it is the key to the left of the '1'
> 0x61 == 'a'
> ...

This has already been corrected in
draft-ietf-radext-rfc2486bis-00.txt.

> This also looks odd:
> c =/ %x26 ; '&et;' allowed
> ^^^
> In USASCII, 0x26 == '&' or '&' in html. Right?

This too.

--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/>