RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Nelson
> Sent: 23 November 2009 14:21
> To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Bernard 
> Aboba'; 'Alan DeKok'
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps
> 
> > What are/were these issues?
> 
> Issues are listed in the RADEXT Issues Tracker, located at:
> 
> http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
> 
> The issues on your draft are 317, 321, 322.

Thanks, odd that it took so many attempts at getting this answer. That said, 321 applied (applies?) to draft-sarikaya-radext-prefix-authorization, which was not part of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-00.
317 applies to draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-access-01 and has been noted and discussed.

On the other hand 322 is quite clearly applicable to any of the drafts including what appears to have been finally understood at the illuminative virtual gathering. Does it still apply? Ie is there still a need to detail the "service aspect" 322 is asking for? Oddly, if one looks at other Radius draft there isn't quite much more than what's in our draft today.

> 
> In addition, there are discussions that are logged in the 
> RADEXT WG mailing list archives.
> 
> > As such we are still expecting a response to the questions posed, 
> > while tentatively planning to re-present a souped up version of the 
> > earlier draft(s).
> 
> The only question that I'm aware of is your question of 
> October 23, that is to say, "If we address the attribute 
> design issues can this draft move forward"?

Uhm... Perhaps reading the follow may help?
#1 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html
#2 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html
#3 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00562.html
#4 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00635.html

> 
> That's not the way the WG works.  There are no shortcuts to 
> addressing commentary and posting revised drafts.  Your 
> current draft is at -01, so it's not like there has been a 
> *lot* of revision activity.  The best way forward is to 

I'm sorry, the draft history is presented at https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html
It would now be 04/05 if not for all the direction/name changes as asked for by the chairs of this WG (!!)

-Woj.

> propose *specific* text revisions to address outstanding 
> comments.  You can do that either by submitting a revised 
> draft, or by submitting sections of OLD and NEW text to the 
> mailing list to show the WG what changes you propose to make 
> in the next draft revision. In many ways, that's actually preferable.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>