RE: Consideration of draft-lior-radius-attribute-type-extension-02.txt

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Glen Zorn writes...

> [gwz] Actually, I think that a better idea than using 0 would be for
> the radext WG to request a PEN of its own.

OK.  That's why I kept asking if using 0 was really the value to use.  OTOH,
maybe the distinction between "Reserved for IANA" and "Reserved for IETF" is
to fine to make a significant difference.

> Does this mean to reference RFC 3575?
> [gwz]
> [gwz] Possibly; if so, I don't think it's really appropriate here since
> virtually nothing 3575 has to say about attributes seems to apply here.

I believe that if RFC 3575 does not sufficiently cover the allocation
procedures for the Extended RADIUS Attribute registry (which may be a
sub-section of the existing RADIUS Registry), then this draft needs to
contain RFC 3575 like instructions to IANA for a code-point allocation
policy.

Could you please elaborate on why what RFC 3575 has to say about the ongoing
allocation policy does not apply here?



--
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/>