Re: RADIUS IANA -03

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> The "situation" as I understand it is that people have appropriated type
> codes, ignoring IETF process.  This situation continues w/the Chivba
> draft & all this draft does is try to justify these violations, both
> after and before the fact.

IMO, there is a difference between "justify" and "document what has
been done". This document seems to do the latter.

> The right thing to do in this document (if we're really interested
> in interoperability, rather than some type of organizational
> exercise in CYA) is to reserve the proprietary, unassigned type
> codes (including those used by the Chiba draft) pending a
> standards-track document fully describing their usage.

I'm sympathetic to the following issue. The iana document says future
packet codes will only be allocated for standards track. The existing
radius document also says this (i.e., glen's successful appeal). Yet,
we are preparing to grant an allocation for a non-standards track
document in contrast to the intention in both documents.  In effect,
the chiba document is being grandfathered in.

Seems to me like the iana document could at least go a bit further in
explaining why the chiba document is being granted an allocation given
that doesn't seem to following the normal rules.

It's also odd that 2882 also mentions these codes. Can one not have
considered 2882 to have assigned these, in which case this document
isn't the one doing the allocation?

Thomas