Re: Formal Appeal against IESG decision

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Glen,

just to make things clear:
are you objecting to the inclusion of the following definitions in 
draft-chiba without putting draft-chiba on standards track?

  Codes used [2]:
        40 - Disconnect-Request
        41 - Disconnect-ACK
        42 - Disconnect-NAK

  Codes used [2]:
        43 - CoF-Request
        44 - CoF-ACK
        45 - CoF-NAK

Reference [2] is to RFC 2882 (Informational), which lists the same codes:

        40 Disconnect Request
        41 Disconnect Ack
        42 Disconnect Nak
        43 Change Filters Request
        44 Change Filters Ack
        45 Change Filters Nak

These codes, too, have not been listed with IANA.

Your suggestion for a suitable remedy would be appreciated.

                 Harald

--On onsdag, januar 15, 2003 01:22:28 -0800 Glen Zorn <gwz@cisco.com> wrote:

> This is to request that the IESG review and reverse its decision to
> approve the document draft-chiba-radius-dynamic-authorization-05.txt for
> publication as an Informational RFC.  This draft allocates new RADIUS
> packet type codes (40-45).  RFC 2865 states in section 6.2, however, that
> "Because a new Packet Type has considerable impact on interoperability, a
> new Packet Type Code requires Standards Action...".  I suppose that a case
> could be made for "grandfathering in" these type codes if they had been
> registered w/IANA under either RFC 2058 or RFC 2138 (both of which lacked
> an IANA Considerations section), but the type codes in question have
> apparently never been registered with IANA at all (see
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types).
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.
>
> ~gwz
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither..."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759