Re: Items from the IETF-63 meeting requiring confirmation.

[Murtaza Chiba <mchiba@cisco.com>]

David et al.,


> 2.) With regard to draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-client-mib-01 and
> draft-ietf-radext-dynauth-server-mib-01, RADEXT Issue 92, that the
> drafts will be revised to use terminology that is consistent with the
> base document, RFC 3576.

Would like to point out that the new terms introduced do use the terms 
as found in the RFC3576 as part of its definition.  These new terms are 
necessary to make it unambiguous as to what the MIB objects are 
referring to.  Else, we will have a strange situation where the 
dynauth-client-mib will have objects that are named radiusServer and 
dynauth-server-mib having objects name radiusClient at the top level, 
which IMO is most likely to be more confusing.

Further, the intent for the new terms has been misrepresented as being 
an attempt to clarify the RFC3576 rather than its original intent which 
was to have unambiguous less confusing object names and text.

If, however, the group at large feels that the terms MUST change then we 
 ask how to make the terms/text less confusing, bearing in mind that 
the roles of the RADIUS Server and Client are actually reversed in the 
case of the RFC3576.

Thanks,
Murtaza

--
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/>