RE: Request for allocation of Tunnel-Type value (fwd)

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

Bernard Aboba <> allegedly scribbled on Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:46
PM:

> A question has arisen as to the appropriate IANA allocaiton policy
> for new values of the Tunnel-Type and Tunnel-Medium-Type attributes. 
> 
> RFC 3575 states that all RADIUS attribute values are assigned by
> Designated Expert, with the exception of Service-Type.  However this
> document only indicates that it updates RFC 2865, not RFC 2868, which
> indicates allocation by IETF consensus.   
> 
> At first glance, this looks like an oversight.  

Maybe, but nevertheless we can change either RFC or leave them both
alone.  I prefer the latter.

> Is there a reason why
> assignment of a new Tunnel-Type value should require IETF consensus
> rather than Designated Expert?  

As I recall, the intent was to require both the publication of an RFC
and expert review (preferably by a relevant WG).  "Expert Review" as
defined in BCP 26 requires neither of these; RFC 3575 seems to imply
that the former is required in the case of "Expert Review", but not the
latter.

--
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/>