Re: IPv6 Address Option

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

  Is there a response to my review?

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00401.html

  Addressing the minor issues brought up in the review would allow
server implementations to support the document by simply updating their
dictionaries.  As it stands now, new data types will have to be defined,
which can be a significant barrier to adoption.

MILES DAVID wrote:
> Folk,
> 
> A few months back some of us expressed a desire to proceed with the
> draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01 and recommend its adoption as a WG
> item. In the recent Broadband Forum meeting in Tokyo it was announced
> that the BBF will seek to finalize their document on IPv6 for PPP
> environments (to which I am co-editor). With the lack of some essential
> RADIUS AVP (such as IPv6-Address-Option) we are stuck between a rock and
> a hard place.
> 
> Delaying the IPv6 for PPP document much beyond November is not an option
> for a large number of operators who wish to get some IPv6 deployment
> going. With this goal in mind I ask the WG and chairs to adopt this
> draft as a starting point with a goal of getting to WGLC within the
> coming months (after Hiroshima IETF). If it needs to be simplified down
> to the essential AVP I am happy to work with the current authors to
> create a draft which can be fast tracked.
> 
> The alternatives are ugly IMO
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> -David Miles
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 
> 


--
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/>