[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proposed Resolution to RFC 4590bis Issue 205
The text of issue 205 is enclosed below. The proposed resolution is to
accept the proposed change to the IANA considerations section.
=========================
Issue 205: IANA Error
Submitter name: Wolfgang Beck
Submitter email address: BeckW@t-systems.com
Date first submitted: September 21, 2006
Reference: https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2006/msg00869.html
Document: RFC 4590
Comment type: E
Priority: S
Section: 7
Rationale/Explanation of issue:
Alexander
In table 2 the Digest-Nextnonce and Digest-Response-Auth are
numbered 106 and 107. But further down they are numbered in
reverse order.
This is ugly. The numbering is consistent in the main text
and in the attributes table. The exception is section 7, IANA
considerations. It's wrong in the IANA registry www.iana.org
as well.
Not an excuse, but an explanation: the IANA section is inserted
at the end of the standardization process. It did not get the
same attention and review time as the rest of the text.
If you already know about this problem I am sorry for
spamming you. But I feel it is important that this error
doesn't sneek it's way into implementations...
Hopefully, the implementors will stick to the text and to the
attribute table in section 5.
I've cc'ed this mail to the chairs of the RADEXT WG. We should
correct the IANA registry entries and issue an errata.
106 is Digest-Response-Auth
107 is Digest-Nextnonce
--
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/>