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

RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC3162 (1923)



Bernard Aboba [mailto://bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]: writes:

Speaking for myself without my chair hat on, I am not sympathetic to this errata.

RFC 3162 uses the type "Address" in a context that makes it fairly clear that it is talking about a new data type for IPv6 addresses, rather than the existing IPv4 address type defined in RFC 2865. 
OK, just to satisfy my own mind, were you guys aware at the time that we were “defining a new RADIUS data type”?  I know that I wasn’t: I just thought that, gosh, “Address” is a good thing to call a field that holds an address.  I don’t recall any conversation about it amongst us (or in the WG) at the time; was it just so obvious that it didn’t even bear mention?  Put another way, am I the only moron on the planet that was completely unaware of the “Da Vinci Code” aspects of the RADIUS RFCs (esp. 2865)?
Previous RADIUS RFCs did not "Update: RFC 2865" when introducing new data types, so I don't believe that this was required in RFC 3162 or any other document.
Actually, had I understood that we were, in fact, altering the set of RADIUS data types at the time I probably would have suggested updating 2865…
There are other instances in RFC 3162 we have been discussing, where the data type used may not be clear (such as Interface-ID), but this specific instance doesn't seem ambiguous.