Re: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Greg Weber wrote:
> I am confused about how this WG item is being pursued.
> The WG charter milestone says the document will be
> submitted as a Proposed Standard, but it has been submitted
> as Informational (non-standards track).

  That's likely a typo left over from it originating as an individual
submission.

> Can someone clarify whether the purpose is to:
> 1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back
> as Informational.

  Document, yes.

> 2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental.

  This was discussed in Dublin && in Minneapolis.  The suggestion in
Dublin was to add CoA.  The suggestion in Minneapolis was to remove it.

  I've asked that the WG respond on this issue.  If there's WG consensus
to remove it, it's gone.

  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/>