[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Guidelines suggested text for checklist:

      * attributes intended primarily for use within an SDO
      * attributes intended primarily for use within a group of SDOs.

DBN: I think what we are saying here is that work not brought to the IETF
should not request IANA assignments.
IANA assignments are governed by RFC 3575, not anything in this document (which is only a BCP). The issue is whether an SDO (or vendor) requesting IETF review should be required to re-host their attributes into the IETF standards space. The answer should be "no" -- IETF review is orthogonal to IANA allocation policy.
We are implicitly reserving the IANA-controlled standard RADIUS attribute ID space for use for work published via the IETF, or by the Independent RFC-Editor Submission route.
This document does not update RFC 3575, so it can't change IANA allocation policy. 


If that is the case, perhaps we should say so in so many words.
I hope that is *not* the case -- because the document doesn't say that it updates RFC 3575. 


   SDOs are encouraged to submit their RADIUS specifications to the IETF
   for publication as an informational RFC.

DBN:  If the SDOs have an open publication policy, whereby all interested
parties can obtain a copy of the relevant portions of these standards
documents, containing the description of RADIUS attributes, this would seem
redundant.
I would agree. We need to think about the potential RFC Editor impact here. If the SDO documents are already publicly available, is there value in having them published as RFCs that is commensurate to the cost imposed on the RFC Editor? The IAOC budget is finite, after all.
In terms of public availability, the main issue is that the IETF cannot review a document that is not made available to it. So the train of logic here is: 

* The SDO wants their document reviewed by the IETF.
* To get IETF review, the SDO needs to make the document available to the reviewers. * One way to make the document available for wide review is to make it openly available, either on the SDO site, or by publishing it as an I-D (and eventually, RFC). 


For example the IEEE, while restricting access to draft
standards and newly published standards, will typically make the MIB modules 
from their works freely available in text format.
Actually, RFC 4441 states that the IEEE 802 will make "work in progress" available to IETF reviewers (the whole document) as well as by making the MIB public. After 6 months, IEEE 802 documents are available on the web site free of charge (via the Get IEEE 802 program). 



--
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/>