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

[John Schnizlein <jschnizl@cisco.com>]

On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Nelson, David wrote:

> Emile van Bergen writes...
>
> > Before disregarding C structures as proper solutions, I think that 
> > each
> > alternative solution should be carefully applied to the problem to see
> > how it plays out. This process is only just beginning in the WG, and
> > deprecating all existing practice *now* seems rather premature.
>
> Are you suggesting that the RADEXT WG work items of RADIUS Attribute
> Design Guidelines and RADIUS Extended Attributes should be applied
> *only* to RADIUS related I-Ds that are submitted *after* RADEXT
> completes its work on all the other extensions on its charter?  IMHO, 
> it
> would be cynical, to say the least, that we establish design guidelines
> and new attribute formats for others but exempt ourselves from paying
> heed to them.  Do as I say, not as I do.  :-(

That does not seem to me to be the (cynical) suggestion.  Rather the 
suggestion is that it is premature to hold up a last-call WG draft 
because it does not comply with an individual draft, not ready for last 
call.

February 25, 2006      draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-00.txt - now 
in last call
March 5, 2006          draft-weber-radius-attr-guidelines-02.txt - on 
the IETF 65 agenda for discussion

It has already been noted that the format proposed is consistant  with 
RFC 3162.

John

--
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/>