RE: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix Attribute"

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Avi Lior <> supposedly scribbled:

> I hate to bring this up but the format of this attribute does not
> adhere to 2865 

How so?

> nor to the RADIUS Attribute Guidelines recommendation. 

So which one should change?

> 
> Avi
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
>> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
>> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:02 PM
>> To: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: RADEXT WG Last Call on "RADIUS Delegated IPv6 Prefix
>> Attribute" 
>> 
>> This is an announcement of RADEXT WG last call on the "RADIUS
>> Delegated-IPv6 Prefix Attribute"
>> document, prior to sending this document on to the IESG for
>> consideration as a Proposed Standard.
>> 
>> The document is available for inspection here:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-00.txt
>> 
>> RADEXT WG last call will last until Monday March 27, 2006.
>> Please send your comments to the RADEXT WG list
>> (radiusext@ops.ietf.org) in the format described on the RADEXT
>> Issues List: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
>> 
>> Since all RADEXT WG last calls require at least 5 reviewers in order
>> to advance the document, please respond indicating that you have read
>> the document and find it acceptable, even if you have no issues to
>> file. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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/>

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
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/>