RE: draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-01.txt - CDMA operator-name prefix

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

Writing a readable explanation of the spaces, and the underlying community 
making the registry list publicly available (as distinct from available for 
$100) would be a big help in making this aspect make sense.

The other thing aspect is that the document says that other name spaces can 
be created.  Either this needs to be changed, with a decent explanation of 
why no more are needed, or a registry for name spaces needs to be defined, 
with a procedure for how / why / when new namespaces can be added.  (Note 
that if only REALM were allowed, this question would not arise, but in 
allowing other namespaces, the question of which ones becomes inevitable.)

Yours,
Joel

At 06:35 AM 11/26/2004, jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com wrote:
> > 2) If it is important to use other name spaces, then an
> > explanation of why
> > it is needed ought to be included.  And the community that
> > wants their name
> > space useable ought to make their registry publicly readable.
>
> Agree. I could(?) write a bit text for that. Unfortunately the publicy
> issue of these roaming specs and procedures is somewhat out of our hands.
> Those specs are usually freely usable etc but just not too easily reachable
> for organizations outside the operator camp.
>
> > 3) At the very least, it is necessary to explicitly and normatively
> > reference the GSM Association Permanent Reference Document.
>
> Agree.


--
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/>