RE: Review of draft-zorn-radius-keywrap

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

So, trying to make sure that I understand your point, the document could
be possibly OK as a definition of a one vendor set of extensions but
would fail some of the criteria of the guidelines document for
multi-vendor usage. 

Dan

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: radext mailing list
> Subject: Re: Review of draft-zorn-radius-keywrap
> 
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > I would like to make a clarification - draft-zorn-radius-keywrap is 
> > and Independent Stream submission. An RFC document that 
> would result 
> > from a possible approval of this document would not be an IETF 
> > document, but an Independent Submission Stream RFC. Not all 
> RFCs are 
> > IETF documents. See RFC 4844 section 5 for definitions of 
> the different RFC streams.
> 
>   Sure.  The following text from Section 3.3.1 still applies, though:
> 
>    The design and specification of VSAs for multi-vendor 
> usage SHOULD be
>    undertaken with the same level of care as standard RADIUS 
> attributes.
>    Specifically, the provisions of this document that apply 
> to standard
>    RADIUS attributes also apply to VSAs for multi-vendor usage.
> 
>   The document does not meet that criteria.
> 
>   Alan DeKok.
> 

--
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/>