From nobody Fri Aug 1 01:30:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9118B1A00EA for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxpYnNGOcVl6 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smptrelay.restena.lu (smtprelay.restena.lu [158.64.1.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82AD61A010D for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7] (unknown [IPv6:2001:a18:1:8:921b:eff:fe1b:d2e7]) by smptrelay.restena.lu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E0AB43995 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:30:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:30:29 +0200 From: Stefan Winter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "radext@ietf.org" X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 OpenPGP: id=8A39DC66; url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/jx2T3B_MUyVQu2EMbfXXFVyE5-I Subject: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:30:34 -0000 Hello, due to my remote-only presence in the IETF90 meeting, one little point to discuss fell in the cracks; I'd like to ask now on the list for opinions because this is the only thing holding back the PROTO write-up of the NAI draft. In TRAC issue 176 ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176 ) I raised the point that the document is currently inconsistent in its use of the term NAI: some parts stress that the identifier is useful in a generic context, beyond network access, while other parts define it to be strictly in a network context. The inconsistency really should be fixed; the question is in what way: either the object itself could be renamed to reflect the wider focus; or the name "Network Access Identifier" could stay, explaining that it's historically grown and does not intend to limit its use to network access despite the name. A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to change. I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. Please let the list know if you disagree with that course of action by 15 Aug 2014. Greetings, Stefan Winter -- Stefan WINTER Ingenieur de Recherche Fondation RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de la Recherche 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg Tel: +352 424409 1 Fax: +352 422473 PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the recipient's key is known to me http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC0DE6A358A39DC66 From nobody Fri Aug 1 01:56:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D49E1A0408 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J2r5ei7YRdGW for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1lrp0020.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 939611A04B1 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:56:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.30.155) by AM2PR02MB0276.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.30.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000 Received: from AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.30.155]) by AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.30.155]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000 From: Rhys Smith To: "radext@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? Thread-Index: AQHPrWLlYWdyZWdl/E2vBsf3EnMLBpu7cj+A Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:56:42 +0000 Message-ID: <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk> References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> In-Reply-To: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [31.50.5.171] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 029097202E x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(252514010)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(51704005)(106116001)(105586002)(87936001)(95666004)(54356999)(106356001)(83716003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(83322001)(74482001)(74502001)(74662001)(85852003)(33656002)(36756003)(85306004)(82746002)(2656002)(83072002)(4396001)(64706001)(76176999)(66066001)(81342001)(2351001)(46102001)(86362001)(107886001)(81542001)(79102001)(50986999)(77982001)(77096002)(99936001)(21056001)(92726001)(101416001)(20776003)(76482001)(107046002)(110136001)(99396002)(80022001)(104396001)(80792004); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AM2PR02MB0276; H:AM2PR02MB0274.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F6930714-188A-4EB2-94F5-A3B02B8C5786"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: cardiff.ac.uk Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/TV6z5p3coMniJluLQWwvJRZjHxw Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 08:56:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_F6930714-188A-4EB2-94F5-A3B02B8C5786 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter wrote: > A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging = consensus > seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to > change. >=20 > I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. +1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it=92s = not meant to be used in the network access context only. Rhys. -- Dr Rhys Smith Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net GPG: 0x4638C985 --Apple-Mail=_F6930714-188A-4EB2-94F5-A3B02B8C5786 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJT21ZJAAoJEJzS5DEs203hZ7UP+gO56dJ+JsA6DCT17ecAHHOu TSnFayGrVBZ5rzu8DvqNxgQwCqMwbCIXMw+piYrjtU5u7RFcRciFEzK6h0Vx4iLu PeXuXnwgQygrSwS8dp2HC7wsXO0j9Pj9QdPTsxSbO9VseOnOZGnkUt/YIaJvF4Ax IhH31L4eNpEkx9qPW9pN/i6QElYfqUj8oFLl8HCG0TscP+MCnoRQXIeNTMeb09XQ 0MV1eLiuGRBE7FJjz/xDMWhf4ZV5YiYzuJyXdZ7faCOqqFncYvVASpVUo3j3bILs Xk1NmweTlHQEhnie+1oO5Gf4XjRUsf1/jpSVM+YE4NMBrs0qbDQMjta9f2oPnvmh e6EgeNEq4cH3+Ah16na5vKZdDpMRk6TtD7QojQQEHds1sW+plPRcBeP7kFeF+b6a eTJiFmjvmy6szEwKpgnwp6IybXCvq4UP1yd4cMgKuwv3S6VTkfBhxWHfBzOyWDko wa6JoOjNl1tFNU1qz2LRNwCjStDnYdrI43dm8Tco1UfycW2s5GmD8MAYG76903LQ hkI7oaLuQCUoezI2jyFJNQZBlL0xNYdajYocbFelqeGjEO/SbEnggYha4b5IigXw uX8vaSgiq/r/drLbkT+SwwJmPLdViC8duaX142hOsyYWl3hYl0VwDmJzKKivEMcC zOWGhknhSl13wuyiL7G5 =TqBs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_F6930714-188A-4EB2-94F5-A3B02B8C5786-- From nobody Sat Aug 2 06:03:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE9A1A0AA7 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 06:03:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iev8QDS388zR for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 06:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU004-OMC2S1.hotmail.com (blu004-omc2s1.hotmail.com [65.55.111.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2061C1A020A for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2014 06:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU406-EAS112 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Sat, 2 Aug 2014 06:03:21 -0700 X-TMN: [x3hV8jSUcZM1ZZXhxf71cAvYDC2lc2a5] X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> From: Bernard Aboba MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 06:03:20 -0700 To: Stefan Winter X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2014 13:03:21.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[22F4E5E0:01CFAE52] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/Aahv6ZmCtsqAe_hYmHOlpGGknE4 Cc: "radext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2014 13:03:27 -0000 RG8gbm90IGNoYW5nZSB0aGUgdGVybS4NCg0KPiBPbiBBdWcgMSwgMjAxNCwgYXQgMTozMCwgIlN0 ZWZhbiBXaW50ZXIiIDxzdGVmYW4ud2ludGVyQHJlc3RlbmEubHU+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiANCj4gSGVs bG8sDQo+IA0KPiBkdWUgdG8gbXkgcmVtb3RlLW9ubHkgcHJlc2VuY2UgaW4gdGhlIElFVEY5MCBt ZWV0aW5nLCBvbmUgbGl0dGxlIHBvaW50DQo+IHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgZmVsbCBpbiB0aGUgY3JhY2tz OyBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBhc2sgbm93IG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0IGZvcg0KPiBvcGluaW9ucyBiZWNhdXNl IHRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIG9ubHkgdGhpbmcgaG9sZGluZyBiYWNrIHRoZSBQUk9UTyB3cml0ZS11cA0K PiBvZiB0aGUgTkFJIGRyYWZ0Lg0KPiANCj4gSW4gVFJBQyBpc3N1ZSAxNzYgKCBodHRwOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvcmFkZXh0L3RyYWMvdGlja2V0LzE3NiApIEkNCj4gcmFpc2VkIHRoZSBw b2ludCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBjdXJyZW50bHkgaW5jb25zaXN0ZW50IGluIGl0cyB1 c2UNCj4gb2YgdGhlIHRlcm0gTkFJOiBzb21lIHBhcnRzIHN0cmVzcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBpZGVudGlm aWVyIGlzIHVzZWZ1bCBpbiBhDQo+IGdlbmVyaWMgY29udGV4dCwgYmV5b25kIG5ldHdvcmsgYWNj ZXNzLCB3aGlsZSBvdGhlciBwYXJ0cyBkZWZpbmUgaXQgdG8NCj4gYmUgc3RyaWN0bHkgaW4gYSBu ZXR3b3JrIGNvbnRleHQuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgaW5jb25zaXN0ZW5jeSByZWFsbHkgc2hvdWxkIGJl IGZpeGVkOyB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMgaW4gd2hhdCB3YXk6DQo+IGVpdGhlciB0aGUgb2JqZWN0 IGl0c2VsZiBjb3VsZCBiZSByZW5hbWVkIHRvIHJlZmxlY3QgdGhlIHdpZGVyIGZvY3VzOyBvcg0K PiB0aGUgbmFtZSAiTmV0d29yayBBY2Nlc3MgSWRlbnRpZmllciIgY291bGQgc3RheSwgZXhwbGFp bmluZyB0aGF0IGl0J3MNCj4gaGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5IGdyb3duIGFuZCBkb2VzIG5vdCBpbnRlbmQg dG8gbGltaXQgaXRzIHVzZSB0byBuZXR3b3JrDQo+IGFjY2VzcyBkZXNwaXRlIHRoZSBuYW1lLg0K PiANCj4gQSBmZXcgcGVvcGxlIGhhdmUgYWxyZWFkeSB2b2ljZWQgdGhlaXIgb3BpbmlvbiBhbmQg YW4gZW1lcmdpbmcgY29uc2Vuc3VzDQo+IHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIHRoYXQgTmV0d29yayBBY2Nlc3Mg SWRlbnRpZmllciBpcyBhIHRvbyB3ZWxsLWtub3duIHRlcm0gdG8NCj4gY2hhbmdlLg0KPiANCj4g SSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gY29uZmlybSBjb25zZW5zdXMgb24gdGhlIGxpc3QgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIHRo ZSB3YXkgdG8gZ28uDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBsZXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qga25vdyBpZiB5b3UgZGlzYWdyZWUg d2l0aCB0aGF0IGNvdXJzZSBvZiBhY3Rpb24gYnkNCj4gMTUgQXVnIDIwMTQuDQo+IA0KPiBHcmVl dGluZ3MsDQo+IA0KPiBTdGVmYW4gV2ludGVyDQo+IA0KPiAtLSANCj4gU3RlZmFuIFdJTlRFUg0K PiBJbmdlbmlldXIgZGUgUmVjaGVyY2hlDQo+IEZvbmRhdGlvbiBSRVNURU5BIC0gUsOpc2VhdSBU w6lsw6lpbmZvcm1hdGlxdWUgZGUgbCdFZHVjYXRpb24gTmF0aW9uYWxlIGV0DQo+IGRlIGxhIFJl Y2hlcmNoZQ0KPiA2LCBydWUgUmljaGFyZCBDb3VkZW5ob3ZlLUthbGVyZ2kNCj4gTC0xMzU5IEx1 eGVtYm91cmcNCj4gDQo+IFRlbDogKzM1MiA0MjQ0MDkgMQ0KPiBGYXg6ICszNTIgNDIyNDczDQo+ IA0KPiBQR1Aga2V5IHVwZGF0ZWQgdG8gNDA5NiBCaXQgUlNBIC0gSSB3aWxsIGVuY3J5cHQgYWxs IG1haWxzIGlmIHRoZQ0KPiByZWNpcGllbnQncyBrZXkgaXMga25vd24gdG8gbWUNCj4gDQo+IGh0 dHA6Ly9wZ3AubWl0LmVkdToxMTM3MS9wa3MvbG9va3VwP29wPWdldCZzZWFyY2g9MHhDMERFNkEz NThBMzlEQzY2DQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXw0KPiByYWRleHQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHJhZGV4dEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3JhZGV4dA0K From nobody Sun Aug 3 01:52:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B341A026A for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 01:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKm3t5gbEb1A for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 01:52:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xenon23.um.es (xenon23.um.es [155.54.212.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBB21A0267 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 01:52:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xenon23.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2183916B9 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:52:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at xenon23.um.es Received: from xenon23.um.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xenon23.um.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6vW-aHULhe59 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:52:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.42.0.18] (84.124.144.62.dyn.user.ono.com [84.124.144.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: alex) by xenon23.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFC931142 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 10:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53DDF854.3060909@um.es> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:52:36 +0200 From: Alejandro Perez Mendez User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: radext@ietf.org References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020506080304090801060707" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/DM74JZIcDABQQkbxRfFne0s1jas Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 08:52:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020506080304090801060707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit El 01/08/14 a las #4, Rhys Smith escribió: > On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter wrote: > >> A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus >> seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to >> change. >> >> I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. > +1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it’s not meant to be used in the network access context only. +1 > Rhys. > -- > Dr Rhys Smith > Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist > Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network > > email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net > GPG: 0x4638C985 > > > _______________________________________________ > radext mailing list > radext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext --------------020506080304090801060707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
El 01/08/14 a las #4, Rhys Smith escribió:
On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu> wrote:


A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus
seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to
change.

I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go.

+1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it’s not meant to be used in the network access context only.

+1

Rhys.
--
Dr Rhys Smith
Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist
Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network

email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net
GPG: 0x4638C985



_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
radext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext

--------------020506080304090801060707-- From nobody Sun Aug 3 02:40:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CCC1A0298 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 02:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnmGbveQsAHs for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 02:40:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C611A0296 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 02:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id ADDC52AC8A4; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:40:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 16855384061; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:40:19 +0200 From: To: Stefan Winter , Bernard Aboba Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? Thread-Index: AQHPrWLfsgtrsUX5NkisNOGD3nOjA5u9J/cAgAF7I4U= Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 09:40:19 +0000 Message-ID: <9395_1407058834_53DE0384_9395_848_1_hd50e5op3rken7qrs4bohobj.1407058794193@email.android.com> References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.220919 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/nCxc5hRa9r0ZosWH2vEFsCz00Dc Cc: "radext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:40:40 -0000 No change :-) Envoy=E9 depuis mon Sony Xperia SP d'Orange ---- Bernard Aboba a =E9crit ---- Do not change the term. > On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:30, "Stefan Winter" wrote: > > Hello, > > due to my remote-only presence in the IETF90 meeting, one little point > to discuss fell in the cracks; I'd like to ask now on the list for > opinions because this is the only thing holding back the PROTO write-up > of the NAI draft. > > In TRAC issue 176 ( http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/176 ) I > raised the point that the document is currently inconsistent in its use > of the term NAI: some parts stress that the identifier is useful in a > generic context, beyond network access, while other parts define it to > be strictly in a network context. > > The inconsistency really should be fixed; the question is in what way: > either the object itself could be renamed to reflect the wider focus; or > the name "Network Access Identifier" could stay, explaining that it's > historically grown and does not intend to limit its use to network > access despite the name. > > A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus > seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to > change. > > I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. > Please let the list know if you disagree with that course of action by > 15 Aug 2014. > > Greetings, > > Stefan Winter > > -- > Stefan WINTER > Ingenieur de Recherche > Fondation RESTENA - R=E9seau T=E9l=E9informatique de l'Education National= e et > de la Recherche > 6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi > L-1359 Luxembourg > > Tel: +352 424409 1 > Fax: +352 422473 > > PGP key updated to 4096 Bit RSA - I will encrypt all mails if the > recipient's key is known to me > > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xC0DE6A358A39DC66 > > _______________________________________________ > radext mailing list > radext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext _______________________________________________ radext mailing list radext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From nobody Sun Aug 3 11:11:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74211A0538 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTjC6Iji2ZKf for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FA291A00FF for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 11:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3695018C5E8; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1B0F727C053; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Sun, 3 Aug 2014 20:11:26 +0200 From: To: "radext@ietf.org" , Alejandro Perez Mendez Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? Thread-Index: AQHPrWaLCP94w/Iv3E+ktLzWke9y0pu+dDcAgAC9qbw= Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 18:11:25 +0000 Message-ID: <11069_1407089487_53DE7B4F_11069_2087_1_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu.1407089170315@email.android.com> References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk>, <53DDF854.3060909@um.es> In-Reply-To: <53DDF854.3060909@um.es> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu1407089170315emailandroidcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.8.3.173319 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/dGtkCaCyNwfgWh0rNR7zQMFVFmM Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:11:36 -0000 --_000_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu1407089170315emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In 3GPP specs, we use to define new identifiers (e.g. Private User ID in It= s) that are "in the format" of a NAI. So these identifiers have the same f= ormat of NAI but are not network access identifiers. I think that this kind= of clarification is sufficient to avoid misinterpretation in the semantic. Lionel Envoy=E9 depuis mon Sony Xperia SP d'Orange ---- Alejandro Perez Mendez a =E9crit ---- El 01/08/14 a las #4, Rhys Smith escribi=F3: On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter wrote: A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consensus seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to change. I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. +1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it=92s not= meant to be used in the network access context only. +1 Rhys. -- Dr Rhys Smith Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net<= mailto:rhys.smith@ja.net> GPG: 0x4638C985 _______________________________________________ radext mailing list radext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu1407089170315emailandroidcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
In 3GPP specs, we use to define new identifiers (e.g. Private U=
ser ID in Its) that are  "in the format" of a NAI. So these ident=
ifiers have the same format of NAI but are not network access identifiers. =
I think that this kind of clarification is sufficient to avoid misinterpret=
ation in the semantic.

Lionel

Envoy=E9 depuis mon Sony Xperia SP d'Orange

---- Alejandro Perez Mendez a =E9crit ----

El 01/08/14 a las #4, Rhys Smith escribi=F3:= 
On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu&g=
t; wrote:


A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging consens=
us
seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too well-known term to
change.

I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go.

+1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it=92s=
 not meant to be used in the network access context only.

+1

Rhys.
--
Dr Rhys Smith
Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist
Cardiff University & Janet, the UK's research and education network

email: smith@cardiff.ac.uk / rhys.smith@ja.net
GPG: 0x4638C985



_______________________________________________
radext mailing list
radex=
t@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext


______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_4t1xpdpvysmo11qs2wbwe4lu1407089170315emailandroidcom_-- From Stefan.Paetow@ja.net Tue Aug 5 05:39:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C659C1A024E for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 05:39:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SMlMftaXRiw8 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 05:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from har003676.ukerna.ac.uk (har003676.ukerna.ac.uk [194.82.140.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C3A81A01A8 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 05:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from har003676.ukerna.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Email Security Appliance) with SMTP id 0182F4A6BA6_3E0D076B for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from EXC001.atlas.ukerna.ac.uk (exc001.atlas.ukerna.ac.uk [193.62.83.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "staffmail.ja.net", Issuer "TERENA SSL CA" (verified OK)) by har003676.ukerna.ac.uk (Sophos Email Appliance) with ESMTPS id CC7E74A6BA1_3E0D075F for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:39:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from EXC001.atlas.ukerna.ac.uk ([193.62.83.37]) by EXC001 ([193.62.83.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:39:17 +0100 From: Stefan Paetow To: "radext@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? Thread-Index: AQHPrWaWK/J0uvHkfEiGMDd5PW3UqZvB+Y4w Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:39:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <53DB5025.10908@restena.lu> <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <0E802CC7-3A07-4B23-8494-842423BDBAE4@cardiff.ac.uk> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.11.218] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/85MFz7kh-9DjZT8iH5UGOb-gcR8 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:15:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [radext] NAI draft: consensus on the name "Network" Access Identifier? X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:40:31 -0000 > On 1 Aug 2014, at 09:30, Stefan Winter wrote: > > > A few people have already voiced their opinion and an emerging=20 > > consensus seems to be that Network Access Identifier is a too=20 > > well-known term to change. > >=20 > > I'd like to confirm consensus on the list that this is the way to go. > > +1 from me. Keep the name the same but add some text to say that it's not= meant to be used in the network access context only. +1 for Rhys' suggestion.=20 Stefan Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a=20 not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024=20 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238 From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:28:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D8F1A6EE4 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0cTvlafUZ1H for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E42201A0097 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:52914 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJq1L-0003di-Qs; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:28:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:28:43 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/183 Message-ID: <063.9b645a0504dc6867d7aa44c8deb37d91@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 183 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/RwZlHwhpdoDhm1aiwsGRL6Aj1mk Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #183 (dynamic-discovery): editorials X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:28:45 -0000 #183: editorials As part of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. These are the editorials I found during the first read. o The I-D uses multiple conventions for "timeout" such as "time out" and "time-out". o I think is "a NAI" should be "an NAI". o In section 2.1.1.3. "dynamic discover" is missing 'y'. o TTL, DNS, PKI, RR, .. are never expanded. Loads of acronyms actually. o In Section 3.1. the bullet list items lack full stops. o In Section 3.4.1 the bullet list items lack full stops. o In Section 7. "They re" should be "They are". o In Section 7. [I-D.housley-pkix-oids] in now RFC7299. o In Section 2.1.1.1. Figure 1 last line has unnecessary space in it. -- ------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: Type: enhancement | jouni.nospam@gmail.com Priority: trivial | Status: new Component: dynamic-discovery | Milestone: Severity: Waiting for Shepherd Writeup | Version: | Keywords: ------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:32:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD321A6F05 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:32:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ONAewyEmOLx3 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C94191A6EFF for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53064 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJq4x-0005Fy-Bx; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:32:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:32:27 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/184 Message-ID: <063.ea5663ecba6396573cff16cbd3d98363@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 184 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/F0s18KOpVYsb2sy7Gt-lk6-WTSc Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #184 (dynamic-discovery): Major additions/deviations claims X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:32:30 -0000 #184: Major additions/deviations claims As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. In Section 1.3. it is claimed: o a fallback mechanism using SRV records, should no matching NAPTR records be found (not defined for Diameter) This is a false claim. See RFC6733 Section 5.2. step 3. -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:34:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313881A016B for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oURknfBS7Ne6 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FDD31A00AE for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53079 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJq6W-0005NM-1a; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:34:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:34:03 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/185 Message-ID: <063.6b383665e49d6b669056a6a2651d4292@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 185 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ruSpcVgN21piQAYckwFNjwH7UC8 Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #185 (dynamic-discovery): missing references X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:34:05 -0000 #185: missing references As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. The document refers to "eduroam" in multiple places as an example. Please provide a reference. -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:40:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A38C1A6F0B for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:40:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kg6p6OtInWAZ for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF6CA1A6F04 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53232 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJqCX-0006Ut-J8; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:40:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:40:17 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/186 Message-ID: <063.5f284cb003bf060a7627b3180720803e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 186 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/El_Hqay9Z8bCVM7WmSGCr0d5-sc Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #186 (dynamic-discovery): Routing error X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:40:19 -0000 #186: Routing error As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. In Section 1.3. it is claimed: o a partially correct routing error detection (not considered for Diameter) What is considered missing in Diameter here? Diameter does detect routing loops without it being part of the dynamic discovery. The discovery mechanism in RFC6733 and 6408 does not protect against a loop in DNS query though (that is implementation specific). -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:50:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05DA51A875C for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZtKrX-nzpYd for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A80411A8753 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53507 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJqMS-0008GM-JK; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:50:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:50:32 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/187 Message-ID: <063.ba2b4bddc24d4cb1355d2b261657b2ec@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 187 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/mFp917gY0LxNbK6FpMIrJvDKFEM Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #187 (dynamic-discovery): Timeouts.. X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:50:35 -0000 #187: Timeouts.. As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. In Section 1.3. it is stated: o much more in-depth guidance on DNS regarding timeouts, failure conditions, alteration of TTLs (not considered for Diameter) While I agree the I-D is more thorough on DNS related timeouts and failure conditions, the above statement is not entirely true. RFC 6733 has timeout specific text when it comes to the TTL learned from DNS and the lifetime of the discovered server's certificate. This is on the other hand missing from this I-D, i.e. the situation where the TTL would exceed certificate lifetime. I'd like to see this also addressed in the I-D. -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 13:57:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BC81A894B for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:57:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.968 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cYp-F3BcDGCT for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A011A891A for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:57:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53618 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJqT4-0000ZR-VD; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:57:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:57:22 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/188 Message-ID: <063.d47d4674d3200d8f248a9cc868cbbe46@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 188 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/9wrJGA929mdeiGOzVJdVatGpA60 Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #188 (dynamic-discovery): Application Service and Protocol Tags X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:57:27 -0000 #188: Application Service and Protocol Tags As a pert of the document shepherd proto write-up I read the I-D. I would urge to align the protocol tag usage with Diameter. That would mean tags: o radius.tls become radius.tls.tcp o radius.dtls become radius.dtls.udp -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext From nobody Tue Aug 19 14:04:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E961A8900 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zFYLjlXkj3S5 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2256D1A6F27 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53834 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from ) id 1XJqa7-0004x7-Nz; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:04:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "radext issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com X-Trac-Project: radext Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:04:39 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/radext/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/189 Message-ID: <063.4785bcc57d94228bd8e3b91295e03e3c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 189 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: jouni.nospam@gmail.com, radext@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+radext@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ObmyC7NG1XBW1W6g-BhVFUkKYrU Cc: radext@ietf.org Subject: [radext] #189 (dynamic-discovery): SRV protocol registry X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: radext@ietf.org List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 21:04:44 -0000 #189: SRV protocol registry Do we actually need this registry asked for in IANA considerations? This document requests the creation of a new IANA registry named "RADIUS/TLS SRV Protocol Registry" with the following initial entries: o _tcp o _udp One is already asking them as part of the service name or port number assignment request. Thus those are "registered" for SRV usage implicitly, right? -- ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Reporter: jouni.nospam@gmail.com | Owner: jouni.nospam@gmail.com Type: task | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: dynamic-discovery | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Ticket URL: radext