Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-fixes-00.txt

["Alan DeKok" <aland@nitros9.org>]

"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Please spell out VOIP on first usage.

  Fixed.

> I think we also need advice for the RADIUS client.  For example:
> "A NAS SHOULD NOT utilize a link-scope address within a NAS-IPv6-Address
> or NAS-IP-Address attributes."

  Added.

> 2.10.  Responses after retransmissions.
> 
> Remove the "." in the section heading.

  Fixed.

> The first sentence is not complete.  Also, the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
> document now states that Framed-IPv6-Prefix is not used for the purposes
> of delegation.  Suggest the following rewording:

  Added, thanks.

> This would seem to conflict with the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute.
> Rather, I think that the result is probably for the NAS to send an
> RA containing whatever is placed in the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute.

  I've updated the text, thanks.

> This draft does not address Issues 107 and 146 on the RADEXT Issues list:
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
> 
> Is there an implicit recommendation that these issues be rejected?

  Issue 146 is (I believe) addressed in the updated MIB documents.
The issue itself lists 'Document: RFC2618bis-2621bis', so I don't
think it's relevant for Issues & Fixes.

  As for issue 107, I will add a section to the document about that,
and submit a new version in a little bit.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>