[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Consensus Call on Broadband Forum Next Steps
On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
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.
Sorry. I didn't realize that's what you were asking. After all, the
location of the Issues Tracker is well know to regular RADEXT WG
members, is listed on the WG charter page, is included in the
instructions for all WGLC, etc.
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.
RADIUS is all about provisioning well-know services. We explicitly
discourage defining new services within the scope of a RADIUS
document. Further, if there is no a convenient reference, e.g. a
Section of an RFC, that clearly and unambiguously describes *exactly*
what the RADIUS Attribute in question is intended to provision, then
some added detail needs to be provided. When I say "exactly", I mean
without addition, deletion or transformation.
#1 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00552.html
Q: We're currently planning on a two draft approach, pretty much
reverting to the state prior to the "merged draft", along with changes
to rid of any datatype issues (fingers crossed) and additional
explanatory text. Before we proceed on this path, which to some may
seem to be yet another goose chase, could you confirm that this is
also your expectation?
A: That's the subject of the currently ongoing consensus call.
Q: Are you now convinced of "interest"?
A: Interest is measured by non-author reviewers who actively
contribute commentary on the WG mailing list.
#2 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00558.html
Nothing in that message ends with a "?".
#3 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00562.html
Q: could you point out (summarise) the issues that were not addressed?
A: Asked and answered.
#4 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2009/msg00635.html
Duplicate questions.
--
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/>