RE: RADEXT Milestone revisions

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...
 
> Since the WG Chairs informed us that our draft was outside the scope
of
> the charter, we requested publication of
draft-zorn-radius-keywrap-09.txt
> as an Informational RFC yesterday.

For the record, this isn't an accurate portrayal of the situation.
Early on, the chairs did indicate that all of your proposed extensions
to RADIUS, including the keywrap draft, were out of scope.  Prior to
IETF 63, however, we stated that keywrap was indeed in scope.  I posted
that opinion to the list.  Further evidence that the keywrap work is in
scope is obtained by its inclusion in Bernard's WLAN attributes draft.
We discussed the pros and cons of each approach, and speculated about
requirements for NIST certification at IETF 63.  Going out of the
meeting, the action item was to continue discussion on the list.  I know
that you discussed this draft with Bernard immediately after the closing
of the RADEXT session at IETF 64, because the streaming audio captured
your conversation.  Bernard advised you to discuss the draft on the
list, and address any issue that had been raised at IETF 63.

While you may have other reasons to choose to pursue advancement of your
keywrap draft as an individual submission Informational RFC, the work
being out of scope for RADEXT is certainly not one of them.


--
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/>