[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [radext] #13: Review
#13: Review
Changes (by stefan.winter@â):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
1. regarding abstract and references: -09 now has no references in the
abstract. The scope has been clarified to "RADIUS over TLS and DTLS".
2. the term RadSec has been replaced with RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS
3. SRV labels have been changed.
4. Examples have been changed.
5. RFC4282 is not referenced any longer.
6. explanatory text for "name resultion library != DNS" has been added. A
reference to the IDNAbis Protocol RFC has been added.
7. IPv6 usage has been mentioned; but the guidance is limited to
"according to the host system's IP stack capabilities". It's difficult to
be more specific.
8. regarding: when is dynamic discovery useful. Primarily for X.509 based
operations yes, but there may be cases where an out-of-band mechanism
delivers PSK keys "just in time" (abfab KNP may be an example). So I'm
hesitant to scope the usefulness of this draft too tightly.
I think this closes all the discussed points in this issue; please re-open
if you think this is not the case.
--
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@â | Owner: stefan.winter@â
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1
Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: 1.0
Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/13#comment:1>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>
--
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/>