Re: Guidelines suggested text for checklist:

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> I think that the issue of IANA assignment could be addressed more
> explicitly.  How about this?
> 
> "SDOs are encouraged to seek review of VSA specifications by the IETF,
> and once reviewed, to publish them as Informational RFCs, rather than
> requesting IANA allocations within the standard RADIUS attribute
> space.   Vendors wishing to make their specifications publicly available
> should also  request publication of their VSA specifications as
> Informational RFCs by the IETF, rather than requesting IANA allocations
> for proprietary attributes."

  I've word-smithed it a little to break up long sentences, and put it
into a separate section.  I've also changed a "should" to a "may", for
publication of vendor specifications.  Given the number of vendors,
there may be dozens of requests for informational RFC's, which is not
efficient or necessary.

...
3.1.3.  Publication of specifications

   SDOs are encouraged to seek review of VSA specifications by the IETF.
   Once reviewed, the specifications may be published as Informational
   RFCs.  This process should be followed instead of requesting IANA
   allocations from within the standard RADIUS attribute space.  Vendors
   wishing to make their specifications publicly available may also
   request publication of their VSA specifications as Informational RFCs
   by the IETF, instead of requesting IANA allocations for proprietary
   attributes

   All other specifications, including new authentication and/or
   security methods SHOULD be allocated via the standard RADIUS space,
   via "IETF Consensus" as noted in [RFC3575] Section 2.1.


  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/>