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

RE: Review of draft-tiwari-radext-tunnel-type-02.txt

Glen Zorn said:

"Relax, pal: we haven't even _gotten_ to the "bureaucratic procedures" yet
;-)."

Indeed.  To allocate a two Tunnel-Type values, is it really reasonable to
require
a "pre-WG review" process, WG last call, IESG review and IETF last call?
Surely this was not the intent of RFC 3575 Section 2.1:

   Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a
   list of values to correspond with various meanings.  There can be 4
   billion (2^32) values for each attribute.  Additional values can be
   allocated by the Designated Expert.  The exception to this policy is
   the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of
   operation for RADIUS.  Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have
   been allocated.  Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF
   Consensus.  The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied
   by a published RFC.


--
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/>