Subject: (radius) an iesg comment on radius docs

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:08:16 -0800

the following was raised during today's iesg chat:

    > Finally, are there iana considerations issue with radius in general?
    > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/radius-types shows the
    > "radius types" that IANA has listed, but RFC 2058 has no IANA
    > considerations, so what is the criteria for giving out new numbers? I
    > note that draft-ietf-radius-tunnel-acct-05.txt has a number it uses
    > that is not listed on IANA's page, and the gap between that number and
    > the last one on the IANA page suggests there are more such unrecorded
    > numbers in use somewhere. Is this OK?

    Rereading all the notes, I now see that there is an IANA
    considerations section in draft-ietf-radius-radius-v2-03.txt (coming
    down the pipeline) that takes care of much of this. However, they
    don't list all the types that have been defined (the IANA site should
    do this I guess), rather they just say what is left to assign (which
    isn't exactly in sync with what is up on the IANA page).

    Seem to me like draft-ietf-radius-ext-05.txt defines a bunch of the
    IANA values that are apparently in use, but are not recorded on the
    IANA page. It would be good if the document would be clear that IANA
    needs to record them.

    > draft-ietf-radius-tunnel-acct-05.txt says:

    >> This document defines new RADIUS accounting Attributes and new
    >> values for the existing Acct-Status-Type Attribute [1] designed to
    >> support the provision of compulsory tunneling in dial-up networks.

    > The document doesn't mention IANA at all, so are we to assume that
    > IANA does not (and need not) record/maintain any of these values?

    This may well be the case, but think it would be worth asking the WG,
    if this hasn't been done yet.

randy
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.