Re: REQUIRED READING: RADEXT Virtual Interim Design Guidelines Discussion

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA]  I have collected Avi Liorâs review of the -10 text (and suggested changes) within Issue 327: Applicability <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues3.html#Issue 327> .  Joe Saloweyâs review is  
> provided in Issue 325: Review <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/radissues3.html#Issue 325> .  As noted in a previous message summarizing the results of the âLast Lookâ (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2010/msg00150.html) there appears to be WG consensus to make changes to the document to address the concerns that have been raised.

  I've submitted a -11 version of the document.  The only change from
the previous -11 version on my web site is a paragraph addressing one of
Joe's comments.  The text was proposed on the list, and accepted.

  A full review of all issues is below.  At this point, I think that all
open issues have been addressed.



300: replacement text

In order to characterize current attribute usage, both the basic and
complex data types defined in the existing RADIUS RFCs are reviewed.

301: replacement text

Does the data fit within the basic data types described in Section
2.1.1, as outlined below?  If so, it SHOULD be encapsulated in a
[RFC2865] format RADIUS attribute, or in a [RFC2865] format RADIUS VSA
that uses one of the existing RADIUS data types.

302: deleted references to [EXTEN]

304: addressed in prior revisions

311: addressed in prior revisions

312: removed references to [EXTEN] in prior revisions

313: clarified in prior revisions

314: issue was closed

318: rejected.

319: addressed in prior revisions

320: addressed in prior revisions

325: addresed in -11

327: addressed in -11

--
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/>