RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

David,

I agree that not all RFCs are equal.   I wasn't disputing that.

But in practical terms, are you then saying that because 2869 is introducing
an attribute into Access-Reject it is violating 2865 which states:

"No other Attributes (except Proxy-State) are permitted in an
Access-Reject."

So no EAP-Message, no Message Authenticator introduced in 2869

Which then invalidates RFC 3579....

Which puts RADIUS EAP in the toilet.

If this is all true....why were we thinking when we wrote these documents.
Why would we work on documents that are clearly violating RADIUS?  Why would
the IESG approve such documents?

I would hope clearly that the above logic is flawed.  And if it is then lets
apply it equally and move on.

If the above logic is not flawed then....wow!!!

Avi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:dnelson@enterasys.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 11:29 AM
> To: Avi Lior; gwz@cisco.com; Frank Quick; W. Mark Townsley
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Barney Wolff; Thomas Narten; Carroll, 
> Christopher P.; gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com; 
> radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
> 
> 
> Avi Lior writes...
> 
> > Regarding: not all RFCs are created equal...
> > We have to be careful here.  This line of thinking is going 
> to create 
> > havoc.
> 
> Havoc?  That sounds like an overstatement, IMHO.
> 
> RFCs are issued as Informational for several reasons.  Some 
> of those reasons are (a) the protocol is not considered 
> sufficiently mature to be considered as a Proposed Standard, 
> (b) the protocol is vendor proprietary or has a limited scope 
> of applicability, and (c) the internet-draft was not the 
> product of any IETF working group, a therefore has had more 
> limited review.
> 
> I suspect that some of the RADIUS RFCs issued after the 
> RADIUS WG closed fall into the (c) category.  Some of them 
> may also have fallen into the
> (a) category, at least at the time of publication.
> 
> Glen is correct, however, in his statement. 
> 

--
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/>