RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-radext-tunnel-type-00.txt

[Abhishek Tiwari <abhisht@microsoft.com>]

Glen Zorn Wrote:
<<<<
Given that there is no discussion whatsoever of Microsoft SSTP in this
document, I can't see how anyone could judge from reading it whether the
proposed assignment will "negatively impact interoperability or otherwise
extend IETF protocols in an inappropriate or damaging manner" or not.  As I
mentioned in my original review, the best solution would be to separate the
Microsoft proprietary stuff into another document, both documenting SSTP and
allocating a Tunnel-Type value for it.

The only reference given for SSTP is to a Microsoft marketing Web site.
>>>>>

1. The reference is not to a marketing site, but rather to the MS-SSTP documentation within the Windows Communications Protocols (MCPP) specification library, which is part of the Open Specifications Developer Center on MSDN. This is also in line with guidelines provided and approved by EU and DoJ.

2. Previous allocations of Tunnel-Type values have been made for vendor developed protocols, some of which (Bay Dial Virtual Service) are not documented  as an Internet draft.

-- Abhishek

--
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/>