[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues List Revision, draft-ietf-radext-digest-auth-00
> This version should address all the issues mentioned in
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT. I propose to mark those issues
> as closed.
A few words about process in the RADEXT WG:
a. Issues can be submitted by anyone, by putting [Issue] in the subject
line and using the format described on the RADEXT WG Issues Page, at
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
It is expected that Issue submissions will include specific
recommendations on how the issue is to be addressed. The burden is on the
submitter to describe what needs to be changed, rather than on the editor
to imagine what how the problem might be fixed.
b. The expectation is that the editor and other interested people will
respond to the issue posting with alternative resolutions, or perhaps an
argument as to why the Issue should be rejected.
c. After WG discussion has petered out, the Editor will make a specific
proposal as how to resolve the issue. This will include the proposed
resolution text in its entirety.
d. In the next revision of the draft, the Editor will make the approved
changes.
In this particular case, we have asked the submitters to verify that their
issues have been closed. Here are the results:
Issues 3 & 4: No answer from Miguel Garcia
Issue 5: Issue known to be *not* closed (Miguel still working on it)
Proposal to move the RADIUS/Diameter text to the Diameter
document and remove normative reference on Diameter (Issue
34)
Issue 6: Peter McCann indicates that issue is not completely closed.
Issue 7: Proposal from Avi Lior (Message-Authenticator) on the table.
Issue 8: Jun indicates this issue is closed.
Issue 11: Jari Arkko indicates the issue is still open.
Issue 30: Jari Arkko indicates the issue is still open.
--
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/>